Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[Tanstaafl]

Rcronk, let me try a different approach to my point:

There is another are of the brain which, if stimulated by electrodes, will cause the person to experience pleasure. That has also been shown in experiments. Does this mean that since I have never had such electrodes implanted and stimulated that I have never experienced pleasure, or that any pleasure I have had was directly caused by god?

It merely indicates that the experience is casued by a normal brain function, and it shows where in the brain that activity is located. It doesn't imply that external stimulation is needed.

ETA: Well that's what I get for not reading a part of your response that was addressed to RandFan. It appears you did already get this point. Excellent. Sorry for the redundancy.

 

[RandFan]

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.

How would you know which one was real?

This is the problem. You say it's possible to (a) know and be wrong and (b) know and be right and it is possible to know the difference between a and b.

 

[Scot Ferre]

Yes I did. They work as well as any other supernatural healing.

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.

Oh, I know - my actual intent behind my question is different, actually. I was genuinely asking Randfan's opinion about such blessings that he gave and received in his life. I only ask because some of the blessings that I've been a part of - they were some of the most profound experiences in my life. I can vividly remember the power inherent in those experiences - it was wonderful to experience.

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.

I think you're right - God intentionally made it so that people *would* reach out to him if they wanted to, despite all evidence to the contrary. If people persevere and ignored the contrary evidence, and took the risk and genuinely wanted to know God, God would make it manifest through the Holy Spirit - I've seen this happen a few times with various people in England.

God doesn't provide objective evidence for the very reason that he gives subjective evidence - to see who is willing to take a leap (or several) leaps of faith to get the truth about God. Being a skeptic is smart, because there's plenty to be skeptical about, and I'm the same way. But if a skeptic wanted to know about the beyond or about God, they have to reach beyond their minds and reason, and use their hearts, and have faith in the unknown to discover the truth.

 

[prewitt81]

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.

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.

Are you saying that God doesn't mind tainting the agency of one or a small group of people (like the unbelieving surgeon in your example), but doesn't want to do this on a wide scale? Why are some people so lucky?

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I know - my actual intent behind my question is different, actually. I was genuinely asking Randfan's opinion about such blessings that he gave and received in his life. I only ask because some of the blessings that I've been a part of - they were some of the most profound experiences in my life. I can vividly remember the power inherent in those experiences - it was wonderful to experience.

Now you know why so many people spend so much money to go see Lourdes, John of God, Sylvia Browne, Benny Hinn, Peter Popov, Ernest Ansly, psychic surgeons, etc., etc..

God doesn't provide objective evidence for the very reason that he gives subjective evidence - to see who is willing to take a leap (or several) leaps of faith to get the truth about God. Being a skeptic is smart, because there's plenty to be skeptical about, and I'm the same way. But if a skeptic wanted to know about the beyond or about God, they have to reach beyond their minds and reason, and use their hearts, and have faith in the unknown to discover the truth.

Most people take that leap and end up not being Mormon.

 

[rcronk]

Tanstaafl - Point taken. I think that it's very important for people to know the ways in which they can be deceived. And I don't blame anyone for assuming that I might be deceived. Just don't tell me that I was as though it is a fact.

I explained one experience once over in the "Religious Book Exchange" here but I'll do it again here - with more detail.

My companion and I were going to visit a woman named Silvia. This was near Washington D.C in Maryland in the Oxon Hill area. We knew that her roommate was a baptist preacher and so we were a little concerned about her roommate coming in and arguing with us but she never did. She just stayed in a back room each time we'd visit to talked to Silvia. One day, we were talking to Silvia, and her roommate came in. I was a little concerned that she might argue with us - we were used to that. She just came in and sat down and listened quietly. We finished the conversation and found out that the preacher hadn't ever read the Book of Mormon (or "Book of the Normans" as some called it) so I decided to have her read a couple of passages that I personally like. I believe one of them was part of the King Benjamin speech in Mosiah chapters 2-4 or thereabouts. We had read probably 5-10 verses and I felt a peaceful warm feeling come from nowhere - we did this all day every day so it was really ordinary and so having a feeling like this come out of nowhere was unusual - and then a knowledge that the Book of Mormon is "the word of God" - it was very distinct and specific and I knew that it was true. At that moment, the preacher looked up at me and described the exact same experience to me and said "this book is the word of God" and I then received knowledge that she actually knew it was true also.

Because of that experience and others like it, I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I have also had similar experiences and thereby have gained knowledge that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, that God exists and hears every word of every prayer, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and understands exactly what I've gone through in life and how I feel. I have worded these things very specifically because this is all that I have received. I know nothing else through subjective means.

 

[prewitt81]

I think you're right - God intentionally made it so that people *would* reach out to him if they wanted to, despite all evidence to the contrary. If people persevere and ignored the contrary evidence, and took the risk and genuinely wanted to know God, God would make it manifest through the Holy Spirit - I've seen this happen a few times with various people in England.

I've seen this very thing, too, in the United Baptist church (a very unique branch of the Baptist faith). I saw a German woman who could speak no English "fall under conviction of her sins", repent (UB repentance is bitter - days/weeks/years of crying and begging for an experimental salvation that only you "know" when you've achieved), and "get saved".

I saw a Catholic woman (the mother of a member of my church) who had been praying for over a week have a miraculous vision of Jesus, which resulted in her "salvation."

I heard a preacher warn the attendees of my uncle's funeral that someone under the sound of his voice was closer to death's door than they knew. Four hours after the funeral, a young boy who had been there was struck and killed by a car.

Those things, at the time, were strong indications to me not only of the existence of God, but of the truth of the United Baptist mode of worship, in particular. To this day, the "songs of Zion" I grew up listening to still produce a reaction in me. They tickle that portion of the brain that religious experiences preside in. I could produce hundreds more stories like this just by asking people in my community.

Everyone knows they're right, and has the subjective evidence to back it up.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Because of that experience and others like it, I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

When I was younger I think I might have found that experience equally compelling. Thanks for relating it to us.

The only thing I would like to point out, is that in the sentence quoted above "know" should be changed to "firmly believe" or something equivalent. We have not shown that your experience was not truly from god, but we have shown that you can't be absolutely certain it was.

 

[rcronk]

prewitt81 - I don't know. It seems to me that in some cases, people get some evidence based on what they have done up to that point in their life. In other cases, like on my mission, I noticed very distinctly that anyone with whom we would have a very spiritual experience would then suddenly have great opposition to that experience - like the anti-Mormon brother-in-law would come to visit the next day, etc. I guessed that it was to even out the playing field. If God gave someone a huge spiritual experience, then that would violate justice when another person comes up and says, "Hey, he only chose you because you gave him a spiritual experience - I would have chosen you too if I had had such an experience, but because I didn't have such an experience, I didn't chose you - therefore, him going to a higher kingdom and me going to a lower kingdom is based on God's actions instead of my own." I have noticed a lot of this leveling happen in my own experiences with people I come in contact with and I could be wrong, but that's what I got from it. And, yes, I know this is anecdotal.

 

[rcronk]

Tansaafl - So, if you know that you love your son, you can't say "know", you have to say that you "firmly believe" that you love him because you haven't proven it to me? Or if you say that you know where you were yesterday at 3:45pm that you can't say you "know" it but that you "firmly believe" it because you haven't proven it to me? That doesn't make sense.

Yes, you have shown me that others have been deceived, but you certainly have not shown that a person (myself included) cannot receive direct revelation from God and know that it is true.

ETA: Ok, so only my last sentence addresses your post. The first two just show that proof isn't necessary for someone to be able to say "know."

 

[Tanstaafl]

No, that's not the same. You do in fact "know" that you had the emotional experience. But you don't "know" that it came from god. That's the difference.

Surely you can see the difference.

Yes, you have shown me that others have been deceived, but you certainly have not shown that a person (myself included) cannot receive direct revelation from God and know that it is true.

The bolded part is what we have shown is not correct. I am more than willing to concede that you can indeed receive such a direct revelation (assuming god exists).

 

[RandFan]

Tansaafl - So, if you know that you love your son, you can't say "know", you have to say that you "firmly believe" that you love him because you haven't proven it to me? Or if you say that you know where you were yesterday at 3:45pm that you can't say you "know" it but that you "firmly believe" it because you haven't proven it to me? That doesn't make sense.

When we say "know" we are conveying a meaning. For those of us that understand the limitations of knowledge that meaning is provisional. I don't know in any absolute sense that I love my son even though I would gladly die for him. I don't know in any absolute sense what I did 5 minutes ago. It could have come into being 4 minutes ago and all memories before that false.

That said, I will grant you that my sense of loving my child and my sense of knowing what I did 5 minutes ago are very certain in my mind. I don't take seriously that I came into being 4 minutes ago.

So, why should my belief that I love my son be any different from your knowing that the Mormon church is true?

Many people know something different. They know that Catholicism is true or the Hindu or Sikh church is true. There is a contradiction. I don't have any contradiction to my love for my son or my existence 5 minutes ago.

 

[rcronk]

Tanstaafl - Please show me your proof that a person cannot know that knowledge that God has given them is indeed true. I don't believe that you can prove that. So why are we here discussing this if neither side can prove anything? I think it's so we can understand each other better and see more clearly where we all may be affected by bias and logical fallacies. That's what I'm getting out of all of this.

RandFan - See my response above to Tanstaafl. And when you talk about limits of knowledge, that doesn't include God's capacity to give us knowledge and also give us the knowledge that it is true - if He exists and has that capacity, of course. So, did you want to summarize your remaining points or just call it finished? I would like to have some closure.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan - See my response above to Tanstaafl. And when you talk about limits of knowledge, that doesn't include God's capacity to give us knowledge and also give us the knowledge that it is true - if He exists and has that capacity, of course.

God's capacity (assuming god exists) is irrelevant. It doesn't resolve the limits of human knowledge. Knowledge can't be absolute. I could be right about something but not absolutely know that I'm right.

So, did you want to summarize your remaining points or just call it finished? I would like to have some closure.

Perhaps I'll summarize something over the weekend. I'll let you know.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Tanstaafl - Please show me your proof that a person cannot know that knowledge that God has given them is indeed true. I don't believe that you can prove that. So why are we here discussing this if neither side can prove anything? I think it's so we can understand each other better and see more clearly where we all may be affected by bias and logical fallacies. That's what I'm getting out of all of this.

RandFan - See my response above to Tanstaafl. And when you talk about limits of knowledge, that doesn't include God's capacity to give us knowledge and also give us the knowledge that it is true - if He exists and has that capacity, of course. So, did you want to summarize your remaining points or just call it finished? I would like to have some closure.

This is disappointing. I really thought you had gotten our point on this earlier, but I was clearly mistaken.

We have shown how such experiences could come from another source. That applies to your experience as well as other people's experiences. But I think the horse has died, so I'll stop digging my spurs in and move on to other topics here.

 

[Pixel42]

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.

Let me try again, because you definitely aren't understanding what I'm saying.

1. You have a subjective experience
2. You interpret that experience as God giving you knowledge of his existence
3. You conclude that God definitely exists

But you cannot prove that you are interpreting your experience correctly. Obviously you are personally 100% convinced that you are, but the fact remains that there are other possible interpretations.

I'm not saying that I know for certain that you are interpreting your experience incorrectly. Your interpretation might be the correct one. I'm just pointing out that, however certain you may be that your interpretation is correct, it's still only one of several possible interpretations, so you are in fact making an unproved and unprovable assumption that it is the correct one.

Does that help? Probably not.

 

[rcronk]

Tanstaafl & RandFan & Pixel42 - You are both limiting your knowledge to what you yourself can find out and reason through. I'm saying that God can "push" (can't think of a better term) knowledge to you and let you know that it is true absolutely, that's all. It's not interpreted. I do understand your points, I'm just saying that there's another alternative that you're not considering. I do appreciate all of your patience with me.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm saying that God can "push" (can't think of a better term) knowledge to you and let you know that it is true absolutely, that's all. It's not interpreted.

You are interpreting your subjective experience as "God pushing knowledge to me and letting me know that it is true absolutely". That may or may not be the correct interpretation.

I'm just saying that there's another alternative that you're not considering.

But I have acknowledged that your interpretation may be the correct one, so I am considering it. You are the only one refusing to consider alternatives.

 

[rcronk]

I assert that God can give knowledge - and the knowledge of its truthfulness - to a person without them having to interpret it at all - it is known inherently. If you accept that this is a possibility and that it is possible that it happened to me, then I am correct in stating that I am sure of that knowledge.

I agree to disagree. The horse is dead. I am listening and I get what you are saying. I promise. I just disagree.

 

[RandFan]

Tanstaafl & RandFan & Pixel42 - You are both limiting your knowledge to what you yourself can find out and reason through.

No. I'm merely acknowledging the facts. I can't prove positivism wrong. At the end of the day the best I have is Cogito ergo sum.

I'm saying that God can "push" (can't think of a better term) knowledge to you and let you know that it is true absolutely, that's all.

What is doing the knowing? What does it mean to say "know"?

It's not interpreted.

I have no idea what this means. Are you saying the information is received without being filtered by external senses? When god pushes information into ones brain what happens? what state changes?

I do understand your points, I'm just saying that there's another alternative that you're not considering. I do appreciate all of your patience with me.

We have too many examples to cause serious doubt to this alternative. Articulett has given you some excellent ones and I've given you a few. What about the individual that KNOWS he has never consciously existed before after certain intervals of time?

You dismiss these as organic problems without seeing the big picture. Our "knowing" is organic. There is no homunculus viewing a screen that transcends our brain and even if there were the problem would then just become recursive.