Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[Scot Ferre]

I promise that my posts are sincere and are meant to address an important question that has yet to be addressed.

Why is it that those who seek answers regarding eternal salvation by investigating Mormon theology find the answers in Mormon theology?

Why is it that those who seek answers regarding eternal salvation by investigating Catholic theology find the answers in Catholic theology?

Why is it that those who seek answers regarding eternal salvation by investigating Protestant Christian theology find the answers in Protestant Christian theology?

Why is it that those who seek answers regarding eternal salvation by investigating Muslim theology find the answers in Muslim theology?

God's plan to lead people to the truth of eternal salvation seems very, very ineffective. It seems you must first look in the right place before you can even bother asking god.

Many religions have partial truths, but the LDS Church claims to be the one with the full truth from God. Whatever you believe, it's important that people are happy in their beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone and don't impose them on others - that is how I think Jesus would have wanted. Diversity is very important, and so is free will - give people the choice to believe whatsoever they wished. If they're happy, great. All what Mormons want you to believe is that people can get *more* happiness through their doctrines and practices. It may not be for everyone, but the choice is there for everyone.

 

[Scot Ferre]

So he's the only one who got magic plates of gold and a seeing stone?

Not quite - 11 other people verified seeing these gold plates and a seeing stone.

What about all the eons of people before Joe Smith-- not one of them prayed sincerely enough?

I've mentioned this in an earlier post - since the deaths of the Apostles, and the Church was therefore corrupted by the loss or corruption of doctrines and truths, until Joseph Smith, various people did some of God's work - like Martin Luther, for instance. But the climate had to be right for God's church to stay standing without falling again once more. It took America to be the right climate to form a church that would presevere through religious freedoms from the laws of the lands.

Anyway - Joseph Smith's prayer was answered because God had called on him to be a prophet in the pre-mortal existence. God had a plan in mind for Joseph Smith and to restore his church.

And all the people after.... the billions who prayed to know the truth and got a real answer-- they spoke in tongues, or castrated themselves, or drank koolaid, or gave away all their possessions or experienced a "miracle"-- they were a sure as you were... so many are... and yet the thing they "know" is different. It's just so prosaic and simple minded. It's like believing you had a dream that the rain gods gave you the secret to the rain dances that pleased them.... and it then it rained for days... so you spend your life teaching people the rain dances and when it doesn't rain you tell them to practice harder or their faith is wrong or the rain gods are mysterious and do and we aren't supposed to question them... or they need to dance more... or give testimony... or add a new step...

All those people - they *will* be given the opportunity to hear the right Gospel - in this life or the next. It's only fair - the only question is - will they believe it when they hear it?

 

[Scot Ferre]

Neither is your assumption that the evidence you received through experience is correct. You do not know. You do not. That is the entire point.

Okay - one question, though - how do *you* know what I know? How do you know I'm wrong?

It seems from your posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your belief in the Mormon faith mostly comes from what you feel is a personal experience you've had with god. You use this personal experience to say you 'know' what you believe is correct and true.

Actually, a variety of sources, including hundreds of different experiences - not just one - have confirmed what is correct and true to me.

Now forgive me for being blunt but who the hell do you think you are?

Do you believe that you are special? That you are one of the chosen few who can pray to god and receive an answer? All of these people who believe just as passionately as you do that they have communed with god and they 'KNOW' god has answered them that they are following the true religion. You believe they are all delusional while you have been blessed enough to be given the real answer from god and not a false or made up one like them?

What is the difference between them and you? Who the hell are you that you are so special?

If the only thing you can provide to support your belief in the Mormon church is a personal experience with god then you have a problem because there are 3 billion other you's saying the same thing, except the answer they received was different.

Fair enough - you raise very good points, and I respect them. So I ask you this, then - do you care what I say? Do you care enough to ask God and find out if I'm telling the truth? God is a source that is accessible to everyone. Do you really want to know, honestly and sincerely? If not, then I'm not sure anything I said will ever satisfy your concerns. All I can say is that I'm happy with what I know, that the Holy Spirit is a constant guide in my life, to doing what's right and what's good. If my "knowledge" is wrong, then my actions are still of value because I hope to make people happy and love them. Live the Golden Rule, eh?

I don't claim to be special, but I just claim to report that I know God exists and that the LDS Church is true - that's all I'm doing.

 

[Scot Ferre]

Are you trying to say that in the entire human population at the time of the flood no one was below the age of 8...

I'm not saying anything - I'm merely positing a scenario. No one knows the population makeup when the Flood occurred, do they?

Do you think it was fair to kill all the first born sons? Why should the first born sons be punished for what the pharaoh did? What if some of those first born sons were innocent?

If Egyptians felt that these Hebrews may have been right, they could have marked their doors to avoid the angel of death. I'd imagine some Egyptian first-borns survived because some of them believed Moses's warning and acted accordingly. Who knows?

Besides, the Hebrews were God's people - many signs were given, and yet the Pharoah refused to believe in the power of God. Something drastic had to happen to release God's people. The Pharoah was representing his people - he had the power and the choice to release them, but didn't - several times. It's unfortunate, but the Pharoah has only himself to blame. Killing the Pharoah would not have made good sense - it would upset the Egyptians even more, and whoever succeeded him wouldn't have released the people.

 

[articulett]

I'm sorry Scot, but to me you sound as brain washed and deluded as Tom Cruise and Maatorc and Plumjam and Mother Theresa and Those who believed in Greek Myths and those who are certain they can make themselves astrally project. I can make better arguments and apologetics for the earth being flat. Your beliefs make no sense... you have just been propping them up for so long that they seem to be real. I feel towards your beliefs the way you feel about Muslims and Scientology and Greek Mythology and the poor Amish who are certain they will perish for ever if they use electricity or the Jehovah Witnesses sure they are chosen but will refuse blood transfusions. I don't believe in gods or demons or souls or engrams or fairies... there is no evidence for many of the things you claim to know... and so much evidence that people have fooled themselves in very similar ways for eons. We even know a bit about the brain mechanisms that lead people to mistake correlation with causation and see agency where there is none. If you weren't raised believing it and you didn't know the common mind trick where you can pray (or chant) to know if something or other is true--and lo' you will find signs that it is-- watch randi do his Sylvia Browne trick... watch Sylvia Browne. You just are afraid to find out whether feelings and faith are a good way to know something. You know for certain that it has failed many people because not all religions and beliefs can be true-- there are mental illnesses like schizophrenia and epilepsy that generate delusions as well-- but they ALL can be false. And the only way a prudent and skeptical person can no what is true and what isn't is to look for the evidence.

Once again, feeling isn't evidence. Your truth is irrelevent to THE truth--the one that is the same for everybody. The earth was the center of the universe for eons for billions of people-- and yet it never was, really. No divine text gave us any real scientific knowledge although all texts can be twisted to look prescient and like they contain truths. Despite your belief, there is still not a shred of measurable evidence for souls or gods or devils... and your inner knowingness doesn't make them real. It just makes them real in your head.

There is no evidence at all that your feelings mean anything more true than the person sure that aliens are visiting them or that they are prophets or that demons are talking to them. Your god knew about Joseph Smith in advance--then he must know about everyone else and how it's all going to turn out... so why the charade of life? Why not just start the eternity the way it's destined to be per gods omniscience. If you weren't raised with this nuttiness you would see it's as silly as Greek Mythology...

From a skeptics perspective it looks like you are trying to convince yourself by convincing others and repeating your "testimony" over and over. But it doesn't seem to make your moral or smarter or happy or right... just sort of smug and dopey from my perspective. I feel sad that you believe that faith and feelings can lead to truths when telling people such things has been used to manipulate them for eons. I feel like your statements are similar to Tom Cruise saying "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance"-- The real truths like DNA stay true... even if nobody believes in it. The fake ones need to be spun by converting others and confirmation bias and feelings and manipulation using ego and fear. People read and study and can spout stuff about astrology that sounds like your claims-- but that doesn't make any of it true. You have lost your ability to think and reason in the only life you will have because you think you are taking a test for some next life. You talk and expect to be heard but you have lost the ability to listen or hear others. You are so sure that you have the truth that you have blinded yourself to they way your apologetics is the same as the apologetics of the religions you never studied. You may be convincing yourself, but I think you've made skeptics feel very glad not to be saddled with such goofiness.-- or whatever it is you feel that makes you glad your parents weren't indoctrinating you with Scientology or Muslim.

 

[The_Animus]

Okay - one question, though - how do *you* know what I know? How do you know I'm wrong?

I don't. But I can say that it is highly unlikely. It is unlikely that there is a god. It is unlikely that if there is a god that the Mormon church out of all religions or possible religions is the right one.

Do you care enough to ask God and find out if I'm telling the truth? God is a source that is accessible to everyone. Do you really want to know, honestly and sincerely?

So before I can talk to god I must believe in him absolutely 100% honestly and sincerely before he will answer me? And let me guess anyone who says they did this and there was no answer didn't believe in him enough? Don't you say something like that to children about santa clause. I'm almost positive its a fallacy but I don't know which off the top of my head.

All I can say is that I'm happy with what I know, that the Holy Spirit is a constant guide in my life, to doing what's right and what's good.

That's great that you do what's right and what's good. But why does there need to be a god for you to do that? God has nothing to do with whether you do whats right or whats good. That is entirely you. Morality is independent of god.

Hypothetical: If god said that for one man to kill another is a good thing. Would you still believe it is wrong to kill another person?

Live the Golden Rule, eh?

"Treat others as you would like to be treated".
Yeah that's a pretty good rule but I like this one better.
"Treat others as they would like to be treated"

Besides, the Hebrews were God's people - many signs were given, and yet the Pharoah refused to believe in the power of God. Something drastic had to happen to release God's people. The Pharoah was representing his people - he had the power and the choice to release them, but didn't - several times. It's unfortunate, but the Pharoah has only himself to blame. Killing the Pharoah would not have made good sense - it would upset the Egyptians even more, and whoever succeeded him wouldn't have released the people.

That is an interesting story. Do you believe it is true? It's quite dramatic and seems to make sense. But you have to wonder. God is a loving, all knowing, all powerful, perfect being of infinite wisdom and knowledge. And that is how he in his infinite wisdom and knowledge chose to handle the situation...

Using all his knowledge and wisdom and love he chose to rain plagues upon people, kill people, and make boils or sores on them. Why not have a personal experience with the Pharaoh and tell him what he would like the Pharaoh to do. It just doesn't make any sense. I know you can say that there must have been a reason, that we cannot judge God, but really...

The symptoms of boils are red, pus-filled lumps that are tender, warm, and/or painful. A yellow or white point at the center of the lump can be seen when the boil is ready to drain or discharge pus. In a severe infection, multiple boils may develop and the patient may experience fever and swollen lymph nodes. A recurring boil is called chronic furunculosis. In some people, itching may develop before the lumps begin to develop. Boils are most often found on the back, underarms, shoulders, face, lip, thighs and buttocks, but may be found elsewhere. Boils on the ear tend to be more painful, and can create shooting pain in the entire area when touched. Sometimes boils will emit an unpleasant smell, particularly when drained or when discharge is present, due to the presence of bacteria in the discharge.

http://health.yahoo.com/media/mayoclinic/images/image_popup/r7_carbuncle.jpg

I cannot bring myself to believe in a God that would do that to people.

 

[Mid]

Hi! Thanks for the welcome!

I dunno - I suppose it's because a specific process that is clearly outlined in the scriptures would be clear and universally accessible to everyone. This way, there is no ambiguity on what to do. But why doesn't God let everyone know about this process, one might ask? Good question as well - because faith and free will are two very important concepts, so previous to God that he would not intervene on such a general level to change anyone's free will. In other words, God gave us free will so that *we* can choose to do whatever we want - including choosing to find God whatever the cost may be. Or not. If you really wanted to find God, then you'd be open to whatever possibility there might be, right? How do you find him? If God has a church, which one is it? How can I find it? The question then becomes - what am I willing to do to find it? This is the key element here - this is why there's a specific process - to clearly know who is serious and honest about finding God, that they are willing to follow the specific process whatever it may be.

As it is, I've found him, and the specific process hasn't failed me. Or my wife. Or my family. Or many of my friends across the world. So the question is - do you believe any of us? That God does answer prayers of a specific nature?

Hi Scott, thanks for answering my question. I suppose my point/query/whatever is given his all knowing, all powerfulness etc. he'd never have any ambiguity about who wanted to find him so what would be the point of all this praying? Now if we accept the idea of a less than all knowing, all powerful god then maybe I could see the point, it would also make the concept of worshiping him a bit more relevant as well.

As to your final question I've no reason to doubt that you, your family and friends believe this process works for you, but I have to say I don't believe that prayers of a specific nature are answered (given the number of unanswered prays, mutually exclusive prays etc.)

 

[Scot Ferre]

From a skeptics perspective it looks like you are trying to convince yourself by convincing others and repeating your "testimony" over and over.

Not really - as I've said several times already, I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm merely reporting what I do know, which knowledge that has been confirmed by others - just not in the way some people want, that's all.

But it doesn't seem to make your moral or smarter or happy or right... just sort of smug and dopey from my perspective.

I wasn't trying to be any better than anyone else - just telling people how I feel and what I know. I think I find it a wise policy for me to withhold judgment about anyone until I meet the person face to face, so I'd like to meet people that I've discussed this issue with. That way, I understand what a person is really like without having any assumptions or judgments.

You have lost your ability to think and reason in the only life you will have because you think you are taking a test for some next life.

LOL - have I, really? Thank you for your professional evaluation - getting a graduate degree in psychology clearly screwed up my ability to think and reason, eh?

You talk and expect to be heard but you have lost the ability to listen or hear others.

You think? I'm still here, listening and welcoming all points of view. Thus, your statement is incorrect.

 

[Scot Ferre]

I don't. But I can say that it is highly unlikely. It is unlikely that there is a god. It is unlikely that if there is a god that the Mormon church out of all religions or possible religions is the right one.

Unlikely, perhaps. Are you prepared to take that chance? Most people do, anyway - but then again, are they happy with their lives? Some aren't, others are. I'm just simply proposing that more happiness can be found through truths from God, that's all.

So before I can talk to god I must believe in him absolutely 100% honestly and sincerely before he will answer me? And let me guess anyone who says they did this and there was no answer didn't believe in him enough?

Not quite - I think the person has to believe in the *possibility* that God may answer. It's not the same thing as believing in God fully. The individual just has to allow for the possibility that he can answer, and have *some* faith in his ability to respond. So, no, 100 percent is not required - doubt is normal in many cases.

Even if they don't get an answer, it doesn't mean that one failed attempt proves it wrong, of course - scientists do experiments hundreds of times until they are successful. But whatever the reasons for no answer, that's between the individual and God.

That's great that you do what's right and what's good. But why does there need to be a god for you to do that? God has nothing to do with whether you do whats right or whats good. That is entirely you. Morality is independent of god.

Not entirely - according to revelation from prophets, everyone has the Light of Christ - to tell what's good and wrong. Think of it as your conscience. Nevertheless, you're right - morality can be independent of God. I can have a good life without God, of course. However, I have found that there is an afterlife, and that God exists, and there is a church which represents him. I know so through a variety of experiences, mainly dealing with the Holy Spirit. By having this information, I would be and am much happier knowing these things than without. That's a key difference, I suppose, between some people and me - that I feel much more happier with the Church in my life than otherwise.

Hypothetical: If god said that for one man to kill another is a good thing. Would you still believe it is wrong to kill another person?

Personally, if *I* was asked to kill, it depends on the situation. After all, I'm not without critical thinking skills and would prefer to evaluate the situation in its entirety before agreeing or disagreeing to follow God's wishes. Chances are, probably not. It helps that I have a wife who's strictly a pacifist and wouldn't kill anyone.

That is an interesting story. Do you believe it is true?

I think so, yes - after all, even atheists recognize that Israel itself has many archaeological sites that correspond to the Bible, and through that, we do know that the Hebrews as a group did exist and lived in Israel before Jesus's time. Where did they come from? Well, there's no proof or evidence that the Exodus occurred (IIRC), but I think it's true.

Using all his knowledge and wisdom and love he chose to rain plagues upon people, kill people, and make boils or sores on them. Why not have a personal experience with the Pharaoh and tell him what he would like the Pharaoh to do. It just doesn't make any sense. I know you can say that there must have been a reason, that we cannot judge God, but really...

Well, you do make good points. I think that the Pharaoh was hardened mostly because he believe he was divine and had power over his people. He didn't want to believe in a divine being who was better than him. Also, releasing the Hebrew slaves would mean that the Egyptian economy would suffer a major blow, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, one by one, miracle after miracle, the Pharoah *refused* to believe in such displays of power. If he refused in such obvious physical displays, the Holy Spirit (as you call a "personal experience") would not done him any good at all. His heart was not receptive in any way - it was closed to possibilities.

In the end, the Pharoah has himself to blame for what happened. If he cared about *his* own people, to spare them from locusts and boils and etc., he would let the slaves go. No, it looks like he was trying to protect *himself* as a symbol of power, to save face and honor - he was being selfish and not thinking about his people. By releasing the slaves, the Pharoah would still have a loyal people. That's my interpretation.

 

[Scot Ferre]

I suppose my point/query/whatever is given his all knowing, all powerfulness etc. he'd never have any ambiguity about who wanted to find him so what would be the point of all this praying? Now if we accept the idea of a less than all knowing, all powerful god then maybe I could see the point, it would also make the concept of worshiping him a bit more relevant as well.

Oh, I still think he's all knowing and all powerful - he just has good reasons not to make it too obvious for people to find the right church. People who do find it and then join it would now face different challenges and that is living up to the choices they make and making difficult decisions, as they prepare for godhood in the next life. Being a god is not meant to be easy, and requires difficult challenges and trials in this life to understand the role of being a god.

In other words, separate the wheat from the chaff. The "wheat" (followers) choose to ignore the ambiguity and do their best to find and live up to God, whatever they have to do. That usually means a willingness to pray and ask God directly and find out what's true and what isn't.

As to your final question I've no reason to doubt that you, your family and friends believe this process works for you, but I have to say I don't believe that prayers of a specific nature are answered (given the number of unanswered prays, mutually exclusive prays etc.)

All right, fair enough. If you don't believe prayers are answered, then you're right - you won't get your own prayers answered. I can only attest that they do get answered.

 

[Mid]

Oh, I still think he's all knowing and all powerful - he just has good reasons not to make it too obvious for people to find the right church. People who do find it and then join it would now face different challenges and that is living up to the choices they make and making difficult decisions, as they prepare for godhood in the next life. Being a god is not meant to be easy, and requires difficult challenges and trials in this life to understand the role of being a god.

In other words, separate the wheat from the chaff. The "wheat" (followers) choose to ignore the ambiguity and do their best to find and live up to God, whatever they have to do. That usually means a willingness to pray and ask God directly and find out what's true and what isn't.

I agree that if god existed he could set any rules he wants, it's just that to me the idea of an arbitrary set of rules seems to make god somewhat petty.

Although on reflection maybe I'm arguing about something different than you are, are you arguing that the rules aren't really necessary for god but for the believer? If so I still can't really see the point, why make things harder than they have to be?

All right, fair enough. If you don't believe prayers are answered, then you're right - you won't get your own prayers answered. I can only attest that they do get answered.

I'm always open to new evidence that prayers have been answered, although I predict that we'll probably disagree on what constitutes evidence

 

[articulett]

Lots of smart people believe weird things... it's not a shield from fooling oneself... we actually know all about it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002F4E6-8CF7-1D49-90FB809EC5880000&catID=2

There are many people who belong to religions you find false who have a higher I.Q. and a better education than you.

Suppose you went to a little remote village to teach Mormonism (your truth)--and a tornado set down and wiped out several loved village members on the day of your arrival. The town leader would naturally think you brought the tornado--you and your false teachings... especially if they had never had a tornado before. Suppose they killed you because, clearly, you were a threat to their village. Suppose they never had another tornado--

Would they be correct in concluding that killing you saved them? Would the fact that they never had another tornado verify that belief? That's what confirmation bias is. Your asking people to take up snakes and if the snakes don't bite them they will know the church is true. The catholics pray for some dead person to help them have a miracle... if the 2 such miracles occur that can be confirmed by doctors) then the dead person can be canonized. Now there is nothing which links the "miracle" to the prayer-- and yet to them the miracle is the proof of saint worthiness.

All religions do this kind of thing. You would see it so readily if someone else tried to get you to do it-- you would understand that it's confirmation bias... but you are blind to how you are doing it to yourself and how obvious it is to anyone who has had any experience with this. Moreover, you are using fear of "satan's temptations" to enforce the faith and promises of eternal glory-- though there isn't any evidence that your promises are any more likely to be true than the promise that the hijackers would be having virgins in heaven.

And Mormon's believe some really weird stuff... stuff that one should be able to detect or test-- like you get your body back at it's healthiest. What about the retarded? Or those born without limbs? It just makes no sense, but you can fill in the details however you want and call it revelation and convince yourself that it's part of "god" whom you would be arrogant to try and understand.

Faith and feelings and confirmation bias are very common tools for humans sto feel like they "know" something, but they are very, very poor when tested scientifically. The facts show, that such things make you feel like you are right and make you much less likely to learn the actual truth. If feeling like you know the truth is more important that actually knowing the facts-- then this forum (and maybe psychology) isn't for you. In fact, Scot, I imagine your belief in satan would make you a very poor psychologist in many ways-- not one I'd recommend anyone go to--

You sound smug and convinced but to a skeptic, so do rain dancers and Osama and Sylvia Browne fans and Tom Cruise. You sound in desperate need of critical thinking and as delusional as those believers of other faiths or cults you find delusional. I'm sure plenty of them have psychology degrees or more impressive credentials than you do.

All the creationists sound smug too, but they just don't understand some very basic facts--and they can't communicate with each other. You make so many claims that are just not supported by the evidence that it's hard to keep up with the story you spin-- and you keep spinning and spinning and denying to keep it all alive.

Do you have any measurable replicable evidence beyond "it's true for me". Skeptics like to know about the stuff that is true for everybody. Do you have any measurable evidence for invisible, immeasurable forces or entitites-- from fairies to gods to souls to engrams to demons to satan to incubus? Is there any evidence that consciousness can exist outside a brain? Because we have tons of evidence that people have been fooling themselves with these notions for eons-- and not a smidgen of evidence that any such things exist.

Contrast that to all the info. we've learned about DNA which was discovered less than a century ago! Air travel! Germ Theory! Atoms. Gravity. Radio waves. Your religion has made you feel like you know great truths while blinding you to the facts that humans can finally know for the first time with no thanks to any scripture or any omniscient anyone.

Surely, as a pscyhologist, you are at least aware of anosognosia and that the majority of neurologists are increasingly unlikely to believe in any "ghosts" in the machine.

 

[Scot Ferre]

Although on reflection maybe I'm arguing about something different than you are, are you arguing that the rules aren't really necessary for god but for the believer? If so I still can't really see the point, why make things harder than they have to be?

To determine whether the person is capable of the responsibilities and privileges of godhood. I'd imagine that it's hard work, and requires humility in all areas, including those things which are unseen or not yet understood. Humility is a required trait in order to learn all there is to know. Just waiting for scientific knowledge to come *might* indicate that the person isn't willing to go the extra mile beyong the limits of science to find what they want to know.

I'm always open to new evidence that prayers have been answered, although I predict that we'll probably disagree on what constitutes evidence

Probably - if you're scientifically based, then yeah, I understand that subjective evidence won't work for ya.

 

[articulett]

Please tell us how your answered prayers are more true than this optical illusion:
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/video8.htm

And why you think you can "feel" the "truth" when so many people feel different truths?

Also, Andrea Yates killed her kids. She believed that had they lived, they could have suffered forever had they made the wrong choices. Do you believe that? She believed that when a kid dies young, he automatically lives happily ever after in heaven. Do you believe that? She believed she was a bad mother (post partum depression) and that this could make her kids turn out bad. Do you believe that? She decided that since was probably going to go to hell, it was best if she did everything in her power to keep her kids from going there-- that's sensible, right? So why was it wrong to kill them? Why are her beliefs wrong. Didn't she ensure her own kids eternal salvation at the expense of her own?

If you arrived in the village and then a tornado set down and killed people, would the people be right to kill you to ensure your brought no more bad luck to their village? Wouldn't it be part of god's plan? Wouldn't you go right to Mormon heaven a fun place by all accounts (Just like hijacker heaven)? If they never had another tornado would they be right in concluding that it was a good idea to kill you? That it was part of "God" or Zeus's or Allah's plan? That the revelation to do so was a sign from their gods?

 

[articulett]

Subjective experience works for everyone... but it isn't consistent (see above) so it's a bad way to know actual truth. Subjectively, the earth looks flat. All the inner knowingness in the world can't prove otherwise. It's slow and steady accumulation of evidence and testing of evidence that leads us to the truth. Subjective truths are as valid for reality as delusions, illusions, lies, misperceptions, mirages, and all things that need to be believed to be true.

Religions and other woo make people confuse axiomatic facts with opinion, conjecture, feelings, beliefs, spin, "higher truths", mystery, legends and every thing else. You guys have such a poor understanding of what constitutes evidence... what constitutes a fact that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. They aren't "revealed" by feelings-- though many people believe they are... but their beliefs do not validate eachothers beliefs... much less correspond with known facts. And they do miserably when subject to double blind tests and the like.

 

[articulett]

To determine whether the person is capable of the responsibilities and privileges of godhood. I'd imagine that it's hard work, and requires humility in all areas, including those things which are unseen or not yet understood. Humility is a required trait in order to learn all there is to know. Just waiting for scientific knowledge to come *might* indicate that the person isn't willing to go the extra mile beyong the limits of science to find what they want to know.



Probably - if you're scientifically based, then yeah, I understand that subjective evidence won't work for ya.

So you think you are coming across as humble?
As a psychologist, you are aware of the placebo effect. It can work. And I presume you understand why we use double blind studies to tease out such affects so we can know what we can attribute to medicine. Why is subjective evidence of the "supernatural" different? Why not subject it to double blind tests. If you make a claim, we can devise a way to test the claim and see if it's a "placebo" effect or a "noticing the hits" effect or not.

 

[articulett]

And if damage to a certain part of the brain, changes a persons ability to reason morally-- then your beliefs come further into question... more stuff for you to assign to the category of "only god knows the reason"...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

What sort of revelations is your prophet getting about these studies... or does he just ignore current research as you do with the assumption that you already "feel" the TRUTH?

 

[Scot Ferre]

There are many people who belong to religions you find false who have a higher I.Q. and a better education than you.

Maybe so - but are people willing to be open to all kinds of possibilities?

Suppose you went to a little remote village to teach Mormonism (your truth)--and a tornado set down and wiped out several loved village members on the day of your arrival. The town leader would naturally think you brought the tornado--you and your false teachings... especially if they had never had a tornado before. Suppose they killed you because, clearly, you were a threat to their village. Suppose they never had another tornado--

LOL - reminds me of what Paul endured in New Testament times.

That's what confirmation bias is.

I *know* what confirmation bias. The trick is - I didn't set this up - God did. If you have a problem with the way he is choosing to reveal himself or his truths to people, take it up with him. I'm just one of many messengers from his church who say that you can find out for yourself. Whether it's confirmation bias or not - it's *still* your choice on whether to ask God about the veracity of our claims.

And Mormon's believe some really weird stuff... stuff that one should be able to detect or test-- like you get your body back at it's healthiest. What about the retarded? Or those born without limbs? It just makes no sense

I happen to be disabled - and it makes perfect sense. Each one of us have weaknesses that we must deal with. In order to grow and develop an understanding of joy and sorrow in this life, and to have character development, one must have a weakness and try to improve, to be a better person than before. In my case, I'm always striving to be a better person, despite my weaknesses.

You cannot detect the power of God - you just can't, not with science. We lay our hands on people to bless them to have better health, and often they do get better, sometimes immediately. All you have is a cause and effect - but no mechanism to determine *how* it happened.

If feeling like you know the truth is more important that actually knowing the facts-- then this forum (and maybe psychology) isn't for you. In fact, Scot, I imagine your belief in satan would make you a very poor psychologist in many ways-- not one I'd recommend anyone go to--

I find this quite amazing to believe, since you have never met me, or the satisfied clients I've had (where I *don't* bring religion into the workplace). You are making some very erroneous assumptions, but of course you don't even need to see me as your psychologist. As far as I can tell, I have a good reputation in my community, so it's your word against many others'. I *could* choose to go to court over your "libel" or "slander" on my professional qualifications (although I honestly don't care, since it's just a forum) and probably prosecute successfully. But it's all a waste of time, since I have much better things to do than worry about one person's opinion on whether I'm professionally qualified.

You sound in desperate need of critical thinking and as delusional as those believers of other faiths or cults you find delusional. I'm sure plenty of them have psychology degrees or more impressive credentials than you do.

Again, you are running the risk of making assumptions without having met me or known me in depth. And I'm telling you - you are incorrect, and if you keep persisting in these assumptions, you are only going to look like a fool who doesn't have the facts about a person whom he's never met.

Do you have any measurable replicable evidence beyond "it's true for me".

As I said earlier, there's absolutely no scientific evidence or facts that will prove God's existence or any God-related items. God intentionally did that so he can know who is willing to work for it and push away the "crap" and strive to find out for themselves. Faith is important in this process.

Your religion has made you feel like you know great truths while blinding you to the facts that humans can finally know for the first time with no thanks to any scripture or any omniscient anyone.

Science measures knowledge. Religion measures truths, particularly of an eternal nature.

Surely, as a pscyhologist, you are at least aware of anosognosia and that the majority of neurologists are increasingly unlikely to believe in any "ghosts" in the machine.

You're correct. I just happen to be a psychologist who knows about God as well. I've met quite a few.

 

[articulett]

So has Michael Shermer... used to be one of those guys convinced he met God...

It is certainly entertaining to hear about other people's weird beliefs, Sternberg reflected, because we are confident that we would never be so foolish. But why do smart people fall for such things? Sternberg's challenge led to a second edition of my book, with a new chapter expounding on my answer to his question: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the findings published in the National Science Foundation's biennial report (April 2002) on the state of science understanding: 30 percent of adult Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations; 60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine.

Education by itself is no paranormal prophylactic. Although belief in ESP decreased from 65 percent among high school graduates to 60 percent among college graduates, and belief in magnetic therapy dropped from 71 percent among high school graduates to 55 percent among college graduates, that still leaves more than half fully endorsing such claims! And for embracing alternative medicine, the percentages actually increase, from 89 percent for high school grads to 92 percent for college grads.
The siren song of pseudoscience can be too alluring to resist.

We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science education, as indicated by the fact that 53 percent of Americans with a high level of science education (nine or more high school and college science/math courses) understand the scientific process, compared with 38 percent of those with a middle-level science education (six to eight such courses) and 17 percent with a low level (five or fewer courses).

The key here is teaching how science works, not just what science has discovered. We recently published an article in Skeptic (Vol. 9, No. 3) revealing the results of a study that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. The authors, W. Richard Walker, Steven J. Hoekstra and Rodney J. Vogl, concluded: "Students that scored well on these [science knowledge] tests were no more or less skeptical of pseudoscientific claims than students that scored very poorly. Apparently, the students were not able to apply their scientific knowledge to evaluate these pseudoscientific claims. We suggest that this inability stems in part from the way that science is traditionally presented to students: Students are taught what to think but not how to think."



The last sentence so obviously applies to you.

 

[Scot Ferre]

And why you think you can "feel" the "truth" when so many people feel different truths?

Why don't you try and experience it for yourself? It can't do any harm, can it?

Also, Andrea Yates killed her kids. She believed that had they lived, they could have suffered forever had they made the wrong choices. Do you believe that? She believed that when a kid dies young, he automatically lives happily ever after in heaven. Do you believe that? She believed she was a bad mother (post partum depression) and that this could make her kids turn out bad. Do you believe that? She decided that since was probably going to go to hell, it was best if she did everything in her power to keep her kids from going there-- that's sensible, right? So why was it wrong to kill them? Why are her beliefs wrong. Didn't she ensure her own kids eternal salvation at the expense of her own?

I do believe that her kids are automatically with God, due to their ages. Nevertheless, they were *robbed* of the choice to live. Andrea did not have the right to take away their free will and end their lives. Only God has that right - nevertheless, it remains a tragedy. Andrea was clearly mentally ill - reading the various news stories made that clear. Whatever she believed, whatever reasons she had, she remains guilty (IMO) of taking away the free will of her children, despite the better world that the children are in right now.

If you arrived in the village and then a tornado set down and killed people, would the people be right to kill you to ensure your brought no more bad luck to their village? Wouldn't it be part of god's plan? Wouldn't you go right to Mormon heaven a fun place by all accounts (Just like hijacker heaven)? If they never had another tornado would they be right in concluding that it was a good idea to kill you? That it was part of "God" or Zeus's or Allah's plan? That the revelation to do so was a sign from their gods?

Whatever God has in mind for me, the Spirit will help guide me to what I need to do. If disaster or calamities befall me, I'm prepared to accept them with faith and humility, but also with courage and intelligence to solve whatever problems I face.