What constitutes proof?

[_Ray A]

My experiences would have to be classified under a sixth sense also, because no emotion is what I experienced.

Charity, how would you, personally, define the difference between revelation and emotion?

[_BishopRic]

It leaves me with a Catch-22 of sorts because I'm willing to still consider that was God - if it was God, though, God's plan for me was to leave the church. To me, that is the only way the experience makes any kind of sense.

Coulda just been the rush we get sometimes when we stand up too fast -- and the desire to receive an answer, so we interpret the event as "God?"

Who knows?

[_BishopRic]

My experiences would have to be classified under a sixth sense also, because no emotion is what I experienced.

Charity, how would you, personally, define the difference between revelation and emotion?

Yes, I would like to know the answer to that too. Somehow, that "experience" has to manifest to the physical wiring of our brain. When and how does it leave the spiritual realm and enter the physical?

[_The Nehor]

My experiences would have to be classified under a sixth sense also, because no emotion is what I experienced.

Charity, how would you, personally, define the difference between revelation and emotion?

May I take a stab at this?

I can tell because revelation frenellates my geoderic self while implodimating me.

[_MishMagnet]

My experiences would have to be classified under a sixth sense also, because no emotion is what I experienced.

Mish, I am very sorry for your experinece.

Thank you, charity. I appreciate that.

[_Ray A]

I can tell because revelation frenellates my geoderic self while implodimating me.

I'd need a revelation to understand that :)

[_charity]

My experiences would have to be classified under a sixth sense also, because no emotion is what I experienced.

Charity, how would you, personally, define the difference between revelation and emotion?

That's easy. Revelation is knowledge which originates externally. Emotion is an internally generated mental state.

[_Ren]

That's easy. Revelation is knowledge which originates externally. Emotion is an internally generated mental state.

And some people claim this board isn't educational...

[_JAK]

I've been thinking about this lately -- in matters of religion and elsewhere, there is always the question of certainty, knowledge...and the proof that one needs to make a conclusion. What is absolute proof?

As an eye doctor, I can assure you that vision can be decevieng. The eyes are good, and generally trustworthy, but not always. So if one says "I saw it with my own eyes," it may be 99.9 % "proof" that it happened, but not 100% I'm sure the same can be said for the other senses.

We often hear about "spiritual witness." Charity frequently promotes her claim that she has had "witness" that gives her enough proof to say she "knows the church is true." Nehor talks to God -- and I assume hears back, so he (I assume) claims that this is enough proof that he "knows" God exists. And so on.

So one question I have is, what is a spiritual witness? Charity often insists it is not a feeling. What sense, or senses, are used to receive this witness? Why is it so vaguely defined? And why does it seem to be so diverse, even among Mormons. I know that for the first 40 years of my life, I claimed to have received this witness, but I interpret what it was differently today. But maybe I was/am just wrong!

One reason I'm a bit more curious than normal is that I was reading the recent Sunstone presentation by Dr. Robert Beckstead regarding the possible use of hallucinogens by Joseph to induce visions:

http://www.mormonelixirs.org/assets/pdf ... shroom.pdf

...and thought about the possibility that many of us misinterpret what our brain "sees" at times for reality. Perhaps in a dream state, we have an experience that is so real, then later when we try to re-construct it, we create a dramatic event that we could swear was real....

Your thoughts?

BishopRic,

As an eye doctor or a medical doctor of any kind, you know about symptoms. They are evidence for something. “Absolute proof” is somewhat misleading as related to evidence.

99% certainty regarding a proof is not “absolute proof.” That is if one demands 100%. In “matters of religion” virtually all reliance is on truth by assertion. Such is NOT the case in science (or medical science) as you well know.

Your topic title begs the larger question: “What is the preponderance of evidence revealing?”

In that question, “absolute truth” becomes a relatively useless phrase.

No evidence what so ever is established for “spiritual.” It’s a euphemism for emotion. People have emotional experiences. As a result of religious indoctrination, they conclude they have had a “spiritual experience.” Absent any evidence for “spiritual” or “spirit,” such terms are merely substitutes for emotional. They feel. And, because of their religious indoctrination, they translate that feeling into spiritual experience. It’s a mind-trick and misanalysis.

As a medical person, you likely recognize psychiatry as a part of the medical arena. Psychiatrists address emotional problems frequently.

The people who claim “spiritual witness” refer to emotions and to their own religious indoctrination.

The insistence that it’s not a “feeling” is unsupported by objective, skeptically reviewed observation. It is a “feeling”. When these people are asked for evidence, they cop out. They say things like: You must experience it for yourself. Well, what does that mean? It means nothing. And they are having an emotional response.

You asked why it’s “so vaguely defined.” The answer is that they can do no better than that. It is vague. When pressed for specific evidence, they again evade the issue and question.

As a result, religion is unreliable. Muslims who engaged in the suicide bombings were persuaded that they will be assured a place in heaven for their sacrifice. They too, have emotions and feelings. They believe their emotions are spiritual. They aren’t any more spiritual than Christians emotions are spiritual.

It’s a result of effective, powerful, brainwashing, Dr. BishopRic.

These people do, as you rightly observe, believe what they want to believe or what “the brain sees.” For them, reality is what they believe. They also minimize or dismiss entirely evidence, scientific evidence in favor of their feelings which they vaguely describe as “spiritual.” But as we can see, feelings are unreliable..

People like Nehor and Charity are victims of religious dogma. Most likely, it is from cradle up. They lack capacity for objective reflection on their own perspective.

In dialogue, the insist on truth by assertion, and they deny or dismiss intellectually honest analysis about the evidence.

Nehor’s: I talk to God and God talks to me is both arrogant and ignorant. When asked for clear, transparent evidence for his God claims, he offers nothing. Charity responds in similar fashion.

While they may in some aspects of their lives rely on evidence and science (such as participation on this bb), they also maintain a
God box for beliefs which they are entirely unwilling to examine with any objectivity. And, they cannot do that. Objective examination of religious dogma demonstrates that it is unreliable.

JAK

[_krose]

I have heard it postulated that some people are born with a much greater ability to sense spiritual phenomena. These are the mystics. If that's true, and if it's also true that a spiritual witness is the God-designed method of obtaining and verifying truth, all I can say is that it's incredibly unfair.

I "tried my guts out" for a long time in an effort to get that feeling, and what I got didn't come anywhere close to the 'witness' that is spoken of by some people. It was no more than the good feeling that comes on many other occasions, and I'm quite certain that it was self-generated.