Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[Tanstaafl]

Again, why isn't everyone here jumping on Marcos for making an objectively unsubstantiated claim but if I ever hint to coming close to doing such a thing, it's a dog-pile on rcronk? Could it really be as simple as whether people agree or disagree with the unsubstantiated claim that's being made? Can we be honest here?

I think it's because most of us have seen evidence in the past that supports his statement. Even though he didn't supply support, we already have reason to believe it's probably a true statement.

 

[rcronk]

Thanks. Yeah, I didn't notice before, but now that I think about it, I did have a helmet with electrodes and a strong magnetic field on my head the days that I had these experiences!

"It's probably a true statement" - but without any objective evidence? I never get away with that here, ever.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Well, you have to admit, what you've been claiming here does stretch the limits of the laws of physics a bit as we know them. Mundane claims require only mudane evidence, extraordinay claims require a bit more.

 

[rcronk]

I get your point, however, people here have told me that subjective data is a completely useless way of acquiring knowledge because of the mistakes that can be made and the lack of reproducibility, etc. regardless of the situation or the thing being "proven". Marcus made a statement of "fact" based on an assumption about my subjective experience. Where's the dog pile? I guess I just want everyone here to own their bias, that's all. I've owned mine and RandFan has owned his.

 

[Tanstaafl]

If we make no assumptions about other people's subjective experiences, we can't have a meaningful conversation about them at all. As you correctly point out, none of us can ever know precisely what someone else's experience feels like. But we can describe them, and we can relate some else's description to what we have felt ourselves. I think that does make for useful dialog.

If you consider your personal experience to be that totally inaccessible to us, there was really no point in your bringing it up in the first place. You're the one who introduced it to the discussion originally. It's a little late to dissuade us from discussing it, but I guess you're free to try.

 

[Marcus]

Things move fast here, you practially have to monitor this thread in real time. There is plenty of evidence for states of religious ecstasy, often associated with feelings of great knowledge imparted, most likely caused by neurotransmitter imbalance. This can be induced chemically, or by various techniques, including prayer rituals, chanting, and meditation, to name a few. As you pointed out, I don't have a precise description of your experience, as far as I know you haven't provided one. I realize that if you keep your experience a mystery, you can shield that part of your belief from criticism, as you can claim that no one can disprove it. Which is true. I also cede that I am providing no evidence at this time. I tell you what, you provide a detailed descrition of your experience, and I will state what I think are the most likely candidates, complete with references and links, when I get back from out of town next week. No offence intended, rcronk, I am attempting to have a friendly discussion, if I am failing in that, it is my fault.

 

[Elind]

Elind – You have no objective proof that God doesn't exist so why can you "come to a conclusion" that he does not exist and then use that "conclusion" to say that the plates, etc. are not true?

There are countless threads on this subject. I don't need proof that something doesn't exist. Only that something does, if I make that claim.

You don't have proof that can be shown to anyone other than yourself (or those who think just like you), just faith.

The simplest explanation I can give why there is no god, is that it is all so utterly ridiculous, like the story of the plates (sorry, don't mean offense even if that is what it amounts to).

My arguments have been against incorrect information. For example, many have said that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I brought evidence that disproves that incorrect assertion. I never suggested that "it therefore" came from God – never, not once. The only purpose of bringing up that evidence was to correct the incorrect assertions being put forth. That's all.

Are you saying then that you are not claiming that The Book (IE plates) was written by God?

I think not. The only reason you are obsessed with whether or not Joseph Smith "wrote" it is because you believe it was "translated" from plates written by God, and if it could have been proven that Joseph Smith wrote the whole thing, there would have to be some edits to the story.

 

[rcronk]

Tanstaafl - You're missing my point. My point deals with the dissimilar treatment of people claiming to state fact about subjective evidence. That's all.

Marcus - You're fine. Sorry to be using your comments to make a somewhat unrelated point. None of your descriptions of how those feelings can be induced match any of my experiences. I have explained the experiences before. I'll see if I can find the posts again. It will probably be tomorrow by the time I get to it. Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan – Thanks – I try (and fail at times) to be kind and civil. I am getting better at it, I think. The moon exists. The earth is banana-shaped. You say the evidence is just so overwhelming but I say that much of it has been incorrect and I have corrected it. Most of it is circumstantial. None of it is definitive and without alternate explanation. You wouldn't (and haven't) accepted that kind of evidence from me. Your kicker assumes that you know what the circumstances and requirements were for translating. Some guesses have been made, but nobody knows for sure.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Much of the evidence against the Church is overwhelming.

I can and have argued counter positions. I couldn't do so for many of the items we've discussed. It is difnitive. The BOA is a work of fiction and the facimilies have nothing to do with the BOA.

You won't find a group of non-Mormons, show them both sides and have them come down on your side. It can't happen. It really can't. You have to believe in Mormonism first to accept the explanations and evidence your provide.

If that were not true then the cheap out that was offered in your link wouldn't have ever been offered.

The evidence I provide won't persuade most Mormons. The evidence you provide won't persuade non-Mormon scholars. They're not all out to get Mormons btw. If the evidence were convincing in the least I have no doubt that there would be a number of non-Mormon scholars willing to publish a peer reviewed article that puts forward the idea that Joseph Smith found a papyrus detailing a story of Abraham written by Abraham in Egyptian.

Non of it makes sense.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel42 I suggest you read and study the entire Book of Mormon instead of just "some random samples" of it before forming an opinion about it. I would also suggest you objectively study the doctrines of the Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) thoroughly before forming an opinion on them.

Have you formed an opinion on Islam? Did you read and study the entire Qu'ran, and objectively study the doctrines of Islam thoroughly, before forming that opinion? How about Buddism? Hinduism? Scientology?

Everything I learned in my intial research has been confirmed by Scot, who often posts detailed descriptions of his beliefs which have increased my knowledge considerably. Nothing said about it in this thread has been news to me, for instance. I have more than enough information about your church to form an opinion about it.

You stated that my "'knowledge' is based on [my] assumption that [my] interpretation of [my] subjective experiences (as confirmations from God) is the correct one," as though your statement is a fact. The real story is that you have absolutely no idea and no objective (or even subjective) evidence that this is the case

How else is it possible to interpret "can you see how frustrating it is to know something and to not be able to prove it" - the comment this was a response to - except as a reference to your subjective experiences, which you have previously described and stated were the source of your 'knowing' that there is a God, that the BoM is true etc? Anything for which there is objective evidence you can prove. If my interpretation was wrong, please give me an example of something you know which you cannot prove, and which you do not know as a result of your subjective experiences.

I think it's been done in more than one way. It comes down to stimulating a specific area of the brain

Experiences which sound identical to the ones rcronk and Scot describe have also been described by epileptics who have seizures in a particular part of the brain, and by people who have taken hallucinatory drugs.

I recently saw an interview with Stephen Fry in which he described the difference between 'ordinary' depression and clinical depression (he's bi-polar). He said in ordinary depression it's raining in your head, but there's hope that it will pass and the sun will come out again. With clinical depression "it's raining in your head and you know it will never stop". The way he said 'know' reminded me immediately of the way Scot and rcronk use the word.

We have a long way to go in our understanding of the complex interplay between thoughts and feelings and our brains' neurochemistry, but it's already clear that it's a two-way interaction, i.e. our thoughts and feelings affect the neurochemistry, and are in turn affected by it. I strongly suspect that it's this field of study that will eventually yield an explanation of both rcronk's and Fry's kinds of 'knowing'.

 

[Pixel42]

articulett – Thanks. I think you missed another of my posts to you. You have asked many times "why" CTists and theists hold to beliefs and I put forth a specific theory about that in post 643. I asked for specific feedback about what you think about that theory. It's the part that had to do with human needs and addiction. (I'd like to add to that theory that different people give different wieght to different kinds of "evidence" too.) Could you give me feedback on that part of the post. I very much value your feedback on this specific theory. Thanks.

She didn't respond to me when I put forward an almost identical theory back in post #366. If she replies to you, I will sulk.

 

[RandFan]

Experiences which sound identical to the ones rcronk and Scot describe have also been described by epileptics who have seizures in a particular part of the brain, and by people who have taken hallucinatory drugs.

I recently saw an interview with Stephen Fry in which he described the difference between 'ordinary' depression and clinical depression (he's bi-polar). He said in ordinary depression it's raining in your head, but there's hope that it will pass and the sun will come out again. With clinical depression "it's raining in your head and you know it will never stop". The way he said 'know' reminded me immediately of the way Scot and rcronk use the word.

We have a long way to go in our understanding of the complex interplay between thoughts and feelings and our brains' neurochemistry, but it's already clear that it's a two-way interaction, i.e. our thoughts and feelings affect the neurochemistry, and are in turn affected by it. I strongly suspect that it's this field of study that will eventually yield an explanation of both rcronk's and Fry's kinds of 'knowing'.

Good post.

If you haven't seen it watch Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1

 

[RandFan]

This is a comment on rcronk's post #16 in the moderated thread.

The normal rational reasoning process is:

1. Look at evidence
2. Find most likely and plausible way of interpreting it
3. Draw conclusion

After years of arguing with creationists, people who believe the moon landings were a hoax etc etc it has become clear to me that such people use an entirely different reasoning process:

1. Decide what you want to believe
2. Look at evidence
3. Find way of cherry-picking and interpreting it, no matter how unlikely or implausible, that will enable you to continue to believe (1)

For example whilst most people will

1. Look at the Grand Canyon
2. Interpret it as an example of how landscape gradually changes over immense periods of time
3. Conclude that the world is at least many tens of thousands of years old

a young earth creationist will

1. Decide to believe that the world is 6000 years old
2. Look at the Grand Canyon
3. Explain it away as the result of the Flood

It's not just religious beliefs, any belief in which the believer has invested emotionally is prone to provoking the same faulty reasoning when they are confronted with contradictory evidence.

Here's a non-religious example. Compare and contrast

1. Evidence: My husband beats me
2. Interpretation: men do not beat women they love
3. Conclusion: my husband does not love me

with

1. Belief: my husband loves me
2. Evidence: my husband beats me
3. Interpretation: I must be doing something very wrong if the husband who loves me has to beat me

People who work with battered women can get very frustrated when they continually go back to their abusers; understanding the faulty reasoning process they are using helps to understand such behaviour.

Anyone who uses the normal rational reasoning process to examine the validity of the Book of Mormon cannot avoid the conclusion that it is a clumsy fake, containing assertions that are demonstrably false. But to True Believers this conclusion is literally unthinkable, so they come up with the prime examples of this faulty reasoning process that rcronk links to in his post.

Here's a rather more useful link for rcronk:

http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html

It's a very good post pixel. It deserves to be reposted.

BTW, though it is just rhetoric, I like the "clumsy fake" comment.

There came a time in my life when I stopped believing and I looked back on my belief and I had a bit of difficulty understanding how I could have accepted such evident falsehoods. I was actually a little hard on myself and viewed other Mormons with contempt for awhile. Jame Randi helped we understand how it is that humans come to believe such things and why we cling to those beliefs. I no longer have this contempt.

 

[rcronk]

RandFan - OK, we will agree to disagree. You have motivated me to look deeper into these things on both sides of the argument though. I am going to find and read everything I can get my hands on now - from both points of view. Thanks for motivating me to do so.

I think you misspelled "I agree with that" as "good post". I watched the video. I'm sorry but I wasn't having seizures, drinking vodka, chanting, wearing an electrode helmet or anything at all similar to any of those things at the times of my experiences. It seems valid to compare them because they do sound somewhat similar on the surface, but it is like comparing drunk driving and drowsy driving - they look similar on the road, but the similarities on the outside come from different sources - tiredness and alcohol.

I agree that Pixel42's post that you re-posted is a good post - and I have found that many here have fallen into the "decide what to believe..." pattern too. I think we can all learn from it.

Pixel42 - Did I form an opinion on Islam without studying it? No. The Qu'ran? No. Buddhism? I have studied Buddhism and have formed a good opinion of it. Hinduism? No. Scientology? No. I try not to form opinions of things I have not thoroughly read and studied. Thanks for your additional information about your exposure to Mormon doctrine. I was tempted to quiz you but decided not to.

My point was that you stated as if it were a fact that my "'knowledge' is based on [my] assumption that [my] interpretation of [my] subjective experiences (as confirmations from God) is the correct one" and you really don't know that. That's all. I'm not sure I understand your subjective/objective proof questioning. Sorry.

You are resorting to an association fallacy when you say that my experiences sound like the same as those who have epileptic seizures and imply thereby that the brain is causing it. As I said above, I wasn't having an epileptic seizure nor was anything else happening at the time that was even similar to what has been said here (electrodes, seizures, chanting, drinking vodka martinis, etc.).

Don't sulk if she responds - you didn't hound her through multiple posts begging for feedback like I have. The part of my post I'm asking about goes into why people do the things you describe in your post, so it is a bit different.

 

[RandFan]

I think you misspelled "I agree with that" as "good post". I watched the video. I'm sorry but I wasn't having seizures, drinking vodka, chanting, wearing an electrode helmet or anything at all similar to any of those things at the times of my experiences. It seems valid to compare them because they do sound somewhat similar on the surface, but it is like comparing drunk driving and drowsy driving - they look similar on the road, but the similarities on the outside come from different sources - tiredness and alcohol.

I agree that Pixel42's post that you re-posted is a good post - and I have found that many here have fallen into the "decide what to believe..." pattern too. I think we can all learn from it.

Thanks rcronk.

Ramachandran would say that you miss the point. By a mile. Ramachandran isn't trying to cure epileptics or even to understand eplieptics in the hopes of helping epileptics. Quite the contrary. He looks at individuals like and including epileptics to gain an understanding of what we would consider normal human cognition and psychology. If you dismiss the findings because the subject is an epileptic then you completely fail to understand what is being said at all.

 

[Pixel42]

My point was that you stated as if it were a fact that my "'knowledge' is based on [my] assumption that [my] interpretation of [my] subjective experiences (as confirmations from God) is the correct one" and you really don't know that

I'm genuinely puzzled. I certainly understood you to have specifically stated that the knowledge you have that you cannot prove, for example that God definitely exists, comes from your subjective experiences. If I misunderstood you, then I apologise.

So what is it based on then?

I wasn't having an epileptic seizure nor was anything else happening at the time that was even similar to what has been said here (electrodes, seizures, chanting, drinking vodka martinis, etc.).

Neither was Stephen Fry.

 

[Scot Ferre]

Randfan - did you give priesthood blessings? What do you think of them? Do you think they worked?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Tanstaafl - You're missing my point. My point deals with the dissimilar treatment of people claiming to state fact about subjective evidence. That's all.

Marcus - You're fine. Sorry to be using your comments to make a somewhat unrelated point. None of your descriptions of how those feelings can be induced match any of my experiences. I have explained the experiences before. I'll see if I can find the posts again. It will probably be tomorrow by the time I get to it. Thanks.

I think I understood your point, though I was addressing it a bit obliquely. I'm sure there is some double standard in that regard. I'll try to watch out for it in the future, mostly to try to give you some slack if you're claiming something that's plausible, yet subjective.

As far as your response to Marcus, the fact that your feelings were not induced the same way says nothing about whether the brain funciton that gave rise to the feeling was the same or not. These types of studies only show that it is possible to have similar (at least similar within our limits to describe them using language) experiences without god being involved. The expectation is that the brain is also capable of entering the same states without the external stimulus (drugs, electrodes, ets.). What's interesting is not so much the specific methods of triggering the experience, but merely that 1) the experience can be generated artifically (without god) and 2) the descriptions of such feelings are similar to the descriptions we get from those who have had religious experiences such as yourself.

However, I don't think you have really talked much about exactly how this felt to you, and as you state, we can never truly know how it felt to you, so we can't be certain if it's the same. But we also can't help but strongly suspect that it is.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan - did you give priesthood blessings? What do you think of them? Do you think they worked?

Yes I did. They work as well as any other supernatural healing. Millions of people flock to Lourdes every year for healing. Why do so many go there?

 

[rcronk]

RandFan - I think I get the point. He's looking at how we can mistake brain conditions (caused by whatever) for spiritual experiences and then proposing that all spiritual experiences could be explained by various brain conditions. I understand this. I get it. I agree with it to an extent. I have unfortunately had a few of these types of experiences and I can tell you that they are nothing like the experiences I am talking about.

Pixel42 - Let me see if I can clarify. You seem to be assuming that it is not possible for God to give someone knowledge through subjective means and can with that transfer of knowledge give the recipient knowledge of the truthfulness of it. I assert that it can and does happen and that it is different than the other feelings, emotions, seizures, etc. that are being discussed. No assumptions or interpretations have to be made about the knowledge, it's an amazing experience and for me it happened at times not too unlike me just sitting here typing this - no chanting, no vodka, etc. It's ok for you to believe that I'm assuming things about my experience, but it's not ok for you to assert that I am assuming. Gosh, this isn't clear at all. Nevermind.

Scot - From what I've gathered here, nobody here will accept a priesthood blessing as any proof of anything unless you can heal someone in such a way that it can be clinically proven impossible any other way and you can do it on demand and repeatably - and if you did that, you'd get $1,000,000 from James Randi. But if you accepted the money, you'd be practicing priestcraft.

I've seen miracles with priesthood blessings healing lung cancer. The surgeon that worked on my mother's crushed leg saw the bones move together on their own for him to put the screws in - he didn't believe in God but was shaken by the experience, etc. but these are anecdotal and not reproducible. Miracles don't produce faith, they just confirm faith. And none of this matters to skeptics. See - I am learning, huh?

I think God set it up this way on purpose. If I healed someone on camera and in such a way that it proved that I had supernatural power that I claimed came from God, people would then have more evidence toward believing in God and I think it would taint their agency to choose God or not - they'd say they chose God because of that miracle on TV instead of because they truly wanted to choose Him because of their own desires. I think that everything has been balanced so that we can choose what we want internally without depending upon something outside of us to explain why we went that way. Of course, people here would disagree with me, but there you have it.