The dilemma posed by Reggie Anderson’s first vision…

[Gadianton]

I'm not sure what to think of the pony. The thing is, it's possible he really did win a pony, and if he's anything like he is today it's possible he really did tell his family God revealed he would win it. (bear in mind, at this point, he wasn't a Christian yet, he only became a Christian decades after God had worked miracles through him for the first time and so for Dan, it's still significant that a guy who claims to have been told the future by God as a child one day became Christian through the dictates of a dream because a guy who was getting zapped by God as a child surely never would have figured out there was something to the Bible without first literally meeting with Jesus.) However, we don't know much else about him other than he's a "small town doctor". I think it takes talent to become a doctor period. However, he bills himself as a "country doctor" in Tennessee, although he is chief of staff at a hospital there.

So he's successful, but, I wonder if the self-deprecating billing of "country doctor" reveals that perhaps he worked hard in life for what he's obtained, and his sheer specialness didn't automatically see him to much greater notoriety that he feels he deserves. I wonder how many revelations he had throughout his life that didn't pan out that he simply doesn't bring up. He lost his faith as a teenager, probably when reality hit that he wasn't the only game. It looks like approximately 8% of men have NPD, and it's not surprising that narcissistic men win things occasionally, and so I really don't have a reason to doubt the pony story; I give it at least 50-50 odds of being true. I give it 100% odds that he had many other similar impulses of personal superiority and Godly revelation that got crushed, hence leading to his loss of faith.

I really wonder what Dan gets out of these stories. Does he really believe them? I don't think Dan is stupid enough to believe everything he promotes. He has an axe to grind, and so is the idea to message in a certain way that will garner negative attention from this forum? And that's a "win" so to speak? The thing is I think he's terrified of death. Literally terrified. And so there is reason to believe he'd be interested in evidence that suggests he'll never die. That a planet of cows really awaits for his first 5 million years of food in the afterlife. I think his personal fears largely drive his research here. But, I have a hard time really believing he finds the results satisfying. So why?

[Physics Guy]

The four-year-old's pony dream is more striking than the later experience because it purports to have been an accurate prophecy. Okay, it could have happened. Lots of kids dream about wishes coming true, and some kids do win contests. It could also be that the memories from age four aren't reliable.

There probably really was a pony, because otherwise family members who read the book would surely have said, "Dude, what pony?" But maybe the dream actually happened after the pony arrived. Or maybe the dream was announced by the little kid and then some family member got him a pony and let him believe that it was the one from the contest, and that's how the kid remembered the event afterwards, including a confabulation of watching the announcement of his win on TV.

It's also conceivable that Anderson somehow did get singled out to receive revelations. It's just not the most likely explanation of these reported experiences. No explanation for them is going to be probable in the sense that it'll be something that often happens to everyone. Most people don't report things like this. There have been a lot of people in the world, though, and among so many, there are actually many who have reported some kind of revelatory visions or dreams—just as there are rare medical conditions which only strike one in ten thousand, but of which therefore more than a million have suffered. Among the large company of revelation claimants, no-one believes that more than a small fraction have actually had revelations. Even people who believe in true prophets still think that most self-proclaimed prophets are deluded or otherwise false. So looking to naturalistic explanations for purportedly prophetic dreams is not hidebound naysaying. It's just being sensible.

There's a temptation to put that sensible skepticism aside if someone's claimed revelation happens to fit with what one already hopes or believes. The repetition of one's own prior beliefs, in the dream, can feel like an independent corroboration of the beliefs, which supports them. This doesn't really make sense, though. So what if somebody's reported dream happens to mesh well with things I already think? Suppose that some writer sat down and deliberately composed a story which meshed well with my beliefs, like C.S. Lewis writing a Narnia book. That story wouldn't have any weight as evidence supporting my belief, no matter how well it meshed, because the way in which the story was produced did not include any constraints to keep it true to reality. A fictional story can depict real or realistic events, and a fictional world may share some properties with the real world, but these fictional options are optional. There is nothing to stop a fiction from having nothing at all to do with reality. Fictions don't have to be real—and neither do dreams. And so dreams are not evidence, any more than conscious fantasies are.

Dr Anderson at any rate became a doctor. He has probably saved a lot of lives and helped many people recover from sickness and injury. I'm not going to begrudge him a few somewhat self-glorifying dreams. It's not as though he used his dream stories to become a cult leader, institute polygamy, seduce underage girls, or anything like that.

[Gadianton]

That story wouldn't have any weight as evidence supporting my belief, no matter how well it meshed, because the way in which the story was produced did not include any constraints to keep it true to reality

Perhaps I failed to mention this, but yes, Dan must understand this point and so he can't really be building up his own personal faith in that planet of cows waiting. Wait -- what if the planet gave up some land mass for an ocean of peppered gravy? That would be too much gravy -- at least for the average person.

It does seem to get a reaction from people and so it's similar to siding with politicians one might not really agree with. But, I do perceive he's very concerned about his personal immortality and I would think he'd put more effort into tricking himself in to belief.

[huckelberry]

Malkie,I am not clear as to just what is the chance you view as comically remote. People have seen, or tied to see all sorts of things in dreams. For a person to think a dream was a revelation does not require thinking it was not a dream. People have thought of dreams as a way of the mind trying to understand previous experience. That could be emotional problems or just the stuff of life. It could be psychological tangles. If one believes in inspiration from God one might think of a dream as the mind trying to come to terms with or understand that inspiration. I think it is possible some dreams are that.

Hey, huckelberry! You do ask the most interesting questions, and sometimes put a little bit of stress on my grey matter. But that's good for old folks like me - mental exercise is part of the reason I keep coming here.

I’m not sure, though, despite Dr. Anderson’s use of the term dream to describe it, that his experience was merely a dream. It might have been, of course. But it might also have been a privileged vision of the world to come. Or it might, itself, have been a kind of out-of-body near-death experience. I don’t know.

Let me answer by making this a bit more personal.

Suppose I have a dream - something that happens frequently. I describe it as a dream. You - who don't know me - say that the dream I described might have been "a privileged vision of the world to come". Or that it might have been "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience". You admit that don’t know. Am I supposed to take seriously your contention that, because I'm not required to have thought it to be anything other than a dream, it could have been a revelation? Is that a fair representation of your comment? If not, I'm open to correction.

How likely should anyone consider it to be that it wasn't "merely a dream"? Although my use of the gif was mocking, for the purposes of our conversation I'm simply trying to understand.

in my opinion it's entirely reasonable for anyone to consider the contention that it wasn't "merely a dream" to be sufficiently remote, and stretching, as to be comical. I do agree, however, that that is simply my opinion, and that anyone else could believe that, although it was my dream, they can claim that it wasn't "merely a dream". I just fail to see the justification for that view.

Here's another question for you: does your belief that my dream might have been "a privileged vision of the world to come", or "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience" depend on the content of my dream? In other words, is it a post hoc interpretation of something that you consider to be significant? Or are you prepared to say that all of my dreams, sight unseen by you, should be treated as potential revelations?

eta: what if you don't think that the dream I'll have tonight, when described to you, is anything other than a dream, but someone else is convinced that it's a communication from their long lost uncle, telling me I need to send three and fourpence for a dance ticket - or perhaps for a ham shank? (IHQ knows about this, I'll bet)? Where does it all end?

e2ta: "If one believes in inspiration from God one might think of a dream as the mind trying to come to terms with or understand that inspiration. I think it is possible some dreams are that."
Even accepting that idea for the sake of argument, does that also mean that it's somehow OK for someone else - some random person, as my son would say - to declare that perhaps a dream that seems of no particular significance to the dreamer is actually inspiration from God?

Malkie, I have had no dreams that I consider as having a revelatory nature. I certainly would not push such a description upon someone else. I would be very skeptical of unusual demands or request being made based upon claims about dreams.
I was interested in how on a personal level dreams and inspiration from God could work together. I was also thinking that because I view some inspiration from God to be universal or near that perhaps dreams may garble as well as clarify. Dreams and inspiration may have been involved in Joseph Smith start of his journey. Dream being perhaps the primary shaper.
Perhaps there is a thought that revelatory inspiration from God should be clear and understood. What I see instead is that people struggle to understand and at best succeed only a bit. I think if God exist God must view the human struggle to understand as necessary.

[malkie]

Hey, huckelberry! You do ask the most interesting questions, and sometimes put a little bit of stress on my grey matter. But that's good for old folks like me - mental exercise is part of the reason I keep coming here.


Let me answer by making this a bit more personal.

Suppose I have a dream - something that happens frequently. I describe it as a dream. You - who don't know me - say that the dream I described might have been "a privileged vision of the world to come". Or that it might have been "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience". You admit that don’t know. Am I supposed to take seriously your contention that, because I'm not required to have thought it to be anything other than a dream, it could have been a revelation? Is that a fair representation of your comment? If not, I'm open to correction.

How likely should anyone consider it to be that it wasn't "merely a dream"? Although my use of the gif was mocking, for the purposes of our conversation I'm simply trying to understand.

in my opinion it's entirely reasonable for anyone to consider the contention that it wasn't "merely a dream" to be sufficiently remote, and stretching, as to be comical. I do agree, however, that that is simply my opinion, and that anyone else could believe that, although it was my dream, they can claim that it wasn't "merely a dream". I just fail to see the justification for that view.

Here's another question for you: does your belief that my dream might have been "a privileged vision of the world to come", or "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience" depend on the content of my dream? In other words, is it a post hoc interpretation of something that you consider to be significant? Or are you prepared to say that all of my dreams, sight unseen by you, should be treated as potential revelations?

eta: what if you don't think that the dream I'll have tonight, when described to you, is anything other than a dream, but someone else is convinced that it's a communication from their long lost uncle, telling me I need to send three and fourpence for a dance ticket - or perhaps for a ham shank? (IHQ knows about this, I'll bet)? Where does it all end?

e2ta: "If one believes in inspiration from God one might think of a dream as the mind trying to come to terms with or understand that inspiration. I think it is possible some dreams are that."
Even accepting that idea for the sake of argument, does that also mean that it's somehow OK for someone else - some random person, as my son would say - to declare that perhaps a dream that seems of no particular significance to the dreamer is actually inspiration from God?

Malkie, I have had no dreams that I consider as having a revelatory nature. I certainly would not push such a description upon someone else. I would be very skeptical of unusual demands or request being made based upon claims about dreams.
I was interested in how on a personal level dreams and inspiration from God could work together. I was also thinking that because I view some inspiration from God to be universal or near that perhaps dreams may garble as well as clarify. Dreams and inspiration may have been involved in Joseph Smith start of his journey. Dream being perhaps the primary shaper.
Perhaps there is a thought that revelatory inspiration from God should be clear and understood. What I see instead is that people struggle to understand and at best succeed only a bit. I think if God exist God must view the human struggle to understand as necessary.

huckelberry, is it easier now for you to understand my (crude) attempt to express the chances of a dream containing revelation - at least in the specific case we're talking about - as "comically remote"? Especially when the dreamer made no such claim?

I'm reluctant to deny anyone's right to see revelation in their dreams, although I don't believe in it myself. But in this case DCP seems to be insisting (though also expressing doubt!) that the dreamer may have been missing "a privileged vision of the world to come", or "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience", regardless of the interpretation (only a dream) of the dreamer.

DCP's "I don’t know." seems to me to be a way to back out of the suggestion of privileged vision or out-of-body experience if there were pushback. If he really doesn't know, why make these suggestions in the first place, except perhaps to try to somehow find some support for his existing NDE views.

[huckelberry]

Malkie, I have had no dreams that I consider as having a revelatory nature. I certainly would not push such a description upon someone else. I would be very skeptical of unusual demands or request being made based upon claims about dreams.
I was interested in how on a personal level dreams and inspiration from God could work together. I was also thinking that because I view some inspiration from God to be universal or near that perhaps dreams may garble as well as clarify. Dreams and inspiration may have been involved in Joseph Smith start of his journey. Dream being perhaps the primary shaper.
Perhaps there is a thought that revelatory inspiration from God should be clear and understood. What I see instead is that people struggle to understand and at best succeed only a bit. I think if God exist God must view the human struggle to understand as necessary.

huckelberry, is it easier now for you to understand my (crude) attempt to express the chances of a dream containing revelation - at least in the specific case we're talking about - as "comically remote"? Especially when the dreamer made no such claim?

I'm reluctant to deny anyone's right to see revelation in their dreams, although I don't believe in it myself. But in this case DCP seems to be insisting (though also expressing doubt!) that the dreamer may have been missing "a privileged vision of the world to come", or "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience", regardless of the interpretation (only a dream) of the dreamer.

DCP's "I don’t know." seems to me to be a way to back out of the suggestion of privileged vision or out-of-body experience if there were pushback. If he really doesn't know, why make these suggestions in the first place, except perhaps to try to somehow find some support for his existing NDE views.

Malkie, I can see your point. We are perhaps focusing on different angles
I was thinking more about what the dream discussed opening this thread meant to the dreamer. I can see your suspicion, clear observation, that Mr Peterson wants to make more out of it, more data rich about life after death. I am not much interested in near death stories but I can believe the dream had life giving and changes. I think it is possible that in some sense he saw Jesus. That has happened ro many people. It is not some objective proof of anything but it has been life giving for some.

[malkie]

huckelberry, is it easier now for you to understand my (crude) attempt to express the chances of a dream containing revelation - at least in the specific case we're talking about - as "comically remote"? Especially when the dreamer made no such claim?

I'm reluctant to deny anyone's right to see revelation in their dreams, although I don't believe in it myself. But in this case DCP seems to be insisting (though also expressing doubt!) that the dreamer may have been missing "a privileged vision of the world to come", or "a kind of out-of-body near-death experience", regardless of the interpretation (only a dream) of the dreamer.

DCP's "I don’t know." seems to me to be a way to back out of the suggestion of privileged vision or out-of-body experience if there were pushback. If he really doesn't know, why make these suggestions in the first place, except perhaps to try to somehow find some support for his existing NDE views.

Malkie, I can see your point. We are perhaps focusing on different angles
I was thinking more about what the dream discussed opening this thread meant to the dreamer. I can see your suspicion, clear observation, that Mr Peterson wants to make more out of it, more data rich about life after death. I am not much interested in near death stories but I can believe the dream had life giving and changes. I think it is possible that in some sense he saw Jesus. That has happened ro many people. It is not some objective proof of anything but it has been life giving for some.

I agree, heckelberryhuckelberry - I think we've seen enough of each other's comments to know pretty much what to expect. I do continue, however, to appreciate it when you hold me to account, and make me think a bit more about my position on a specific point.
---
Hahaha - Tom just let me know that I misspelled "huckelberry" as "heckelberry" - purely accidental, huck, and not at all a dig at you