Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

[Kishkumen]

My OP which you responded to was my response to PG's post about looking to God for help in how to live. This kind of God would have to be one interested in how we live as apposed to the other ones you brought up that would either not be interested or not capable of that interest. I do agree that this kind of God would leave someone who believes God has no interest in us in the same boat as an atheist in determining the best way to live.

I don’t agree. One does not have to “believe” or conceptualize God as a person in order to see right behavior as a desirable thing. God is not elf on a shelf in every theological system.

Our main perceptions of what we define as reality is based on fairly reliable and consistent senses. This is of course more complicated then that, but we have almost universal agreement on some things we all see as part of reality. That doesn't mean we have it right. When it come to the mystical or spiritual experience that agreement falls apart. That doesn't mean they are all wrong, but it doesn't help. The body does it falls well within reasonable, and you would need some good evidence to eliminate it as reasonable explanations. We see DMT is able to replicate some of the rare experiences. Maybe it is opening the mind to unseen realities, but that is not very reasonable without better evidence, so the body did it remains very reasonable, and I don't know of any evidence that would suggest otherwise. I would also say the body did it also includes the natural environment and how it may interact with our body.

I say it is unreasonable to treat experience as a paltry thing unworthy of serious consideration. Our entire existence is mediated by our experience of things. There are plenty of ways in which we act on our experiences without needing scientific verification of their validity. Spiritual yearnings are not unique in that way.

[Themis]

I don’t agree. One does not have to “believe” or conceptualize God as a person in order to see right behavior as a desirable thing. God is not elf on a shelf in every theological system.

I never said one did. One can believe God as anything they like and still see right behavior as a desirable thing. Wanting to know what is right behavior from a God is what some are looking for.

I say it is unreasonable to treat experience as a paltry thing unworthy of serious consideration. Our entire existence is mediated by our experience of things. There are plenty of ways in which we act on our experiences without needing scientific verification of their validity. Spiritual yearnings are not unique in that way.

I would agree. I believe I have given it serious consideration over a lifetime and still will consider experiences of all kinds. Not all experiences or what we think they mean are on equal ground. Having given it serious consideration has not eliminated the bodies ability to create these experiences on there own. Even the mundane ones we experience from waking to bed are reproduced by the brain while we sleep.

We have a lot of agreement on certain experiences and what they mean, while others have little. Especially the spiritual/mystical. Maybe one problem is they are not shareable the way other experiences are. I have no problem in believing they had a profound experience that has impacted their life. I don't think it is reasonable to believe what some think their spiritual/mystical experiences mean in regards to my understanding of the universe. That should reasonably have good evidence. I suspect you probably don't believe most people's interpretations of their mystical/spiritual experiences since that would cause a flood of contradictory beliefs.

[Kishkumen]

I never said one did. One can believe God as anything they like and still see right behavior as a desirable thing. Wanting to know what is right behavior from a God is what some are looking for.

Sure. I have no doubt people seek authorities to validate their decisions and actions.

Having given it serious consideration has not eliminated the bodies ability to create these experiences on there own. Even the mundane ones we experience from waking to bed are reproduced by the brain while we sleep.

Yes, there is a lot we do not understand about the senses, the mind, and the human experience in general. I am no longer so sure about the body creating these experiences on its own, or that we should dismiss experiences on this basis. What I find unsettling is the ease with which many jump from one extreme conclusion to another on the basis of a few observations and very little information. Of course, in the spiritual realm most organizations, the LDS Church included, do a dismal job at educating their parishioners, so the onus is on them when their bad efforts pay off in crappy results.

We have a lot of agreement on certain experiences and what they mean, while others have little. Especially the spiritual/mystical. Maybe one problem is they are not shareable the way other experiences are. I have no problem in believing they had a profound experience that has impacted their life. I don't think it is reasonable to believe what some think their spiritual/mystical experiences mean in regards to my understanding of the universe. That should reasonably have good evidence. I suspect you probably don't believe most people's interpretations of their mystical/spiritual experiences since that would cause a flood of contradictory beliefs.

I would agree that there is a lot of creativity in the spiritual realm, but I would also note that it is not necessary for us to buy into the experiences of others. Lots of work on getting informed on these things probably leads to seeing some underlying continuities between different systems, a sort of perennialism, if you will, but I don't accept that any personal mystical experience is a mandate to command others in their lives. Religions are like philosophical schools, in my opinion. They each have something to teach, but none of them have a corner on the absolute Truth. One is either born into a system or buys into one for some reason, but I don't know that joining any club is necessary at all. Yes, those experiences are not shareable. They are by nature individual experiences. That does not make them phony or stupid, but it does limit the kind of force their have in persuading others.

An advantage and liability in the LDS system is in its encouragement that one "gain a testimony." If it works, someone has a powerful spiritual experience as the foundation for their further journey down the Mormon path. The problems with it are well known. Not everyone gets one of these experiences, and, even worse, the church teaches a misleading epistemological framework based on these experiences. Having a spiritual experience in response to the Book of Mormon does not make Russel M. Nelson a prophet of God. There is no system of dominoes that "God" has set up to get people to make those connections. The question to ask is why people have those responses to a reading of the Book of Mormon. It can't be because "God" is telling you that there were Nephites in 100 AD, or whatever. It can't be because God wanted Brigham Young to run his special Church after Joseph Smith died. It has to be something quite different from that. I would say that one is responding to the spiritual content in the Book of Mormon itself, which is in many ways based on the Bible, although it does add some interesting and worthwhile observations of its own. Some of it, however, is absolute nonsense.

[Themis]

Yes, there is a lot we do not understand about the senses, the mind, and the human experience in general. I am no longer so sure about the body creating these experiences on its own, or that we should dismiss experiences on this basis.

It's not the experience to question, but maybe the interpretations.

What I find unsettling is the ease with which many jump from one extreme conclusion to another on the basis of a few observations and very little information.

Which we see people doing with these experiences. Maybe it is a evolutionary result of a human world of the past with little information and observations to go on.

They are by nature individual experiences. That does not make them phony or stupid, but it does limit the kind of force their have in persuading others.

I don't consider them phony or stupid, but most don't come with the same meaning, so it is wise even for the person experiencing the spiritual to be open they could be wrong on their interpretations. One thing I have never seen is how one is reasonably able to eliminate the body did it explanation.

The question to ask is why people have those responses to a reading of the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps the same reason people have similar responses to other non-religious texts. In fact my experience is that many non-religious texts provide better responses than the Book of Mormon. Some texts work well for some and nothing for others. I would predict the Koran would have a better responses for Muslims than the Book of Mormon would, while Mormons will have better responses to the Book of Mormon than the Koran. To me that would indicate a good part to all of the response is coming from the person and their personal preferences and bias.

[Kishkumen]

It's not the experience to question, but maybe the interpretations.

The interpretation part is tricky!

Which we see people doing with these experiences. Maybe it is a evolutionary result of a human world of the past with little information and observations to go on.

Or without them. Lots of leaping without carefully looking.

I don't consider them phony or stupid, but most don't come with the same meaning, so it is wise even for the person experiencing the spiritual to be open they could be wrong on their interpretations. One thing I have never seen is how one is reasonably able to eliminate the body did it explanation.

I consider the meaning an open question. There is a lot yet to explore there. You are right that people need to be aware of the possibility of getting the interpretation wrong.

As for eliminating the "body did it" explanation, I would say that people who are trained to identify certain feelings as divine in origin are unlikely to leap to the "body did it" explanation, while those who have made that leap often see it as the only rational explanation. Both could be wrong.

Perhaps the same reason people have similar responses to other non-religious texts. In fact my experience is that many non-religious texts provide better responses than the Book of Mormon. Some texts work well for some and nothing for others. I would predict the Koran would have a better responses for Muslims then the Book of Mormon would, while Mormons will have better responses to the Book of Mormon than the Koran. To me that would indicate a good part to all of the response is coming from the person and their personal preferences and bias.

Yes, I was using the Book of Mormon as an example, not saying it was the only book that elicited those responses. Your conclusion, however, doesn't work, in my opinion. People are more likely to respond to the things that they have been taught to look for. That does not mean there is nothing to look for. If I learn to identify different kinds of trees based on the different shapes of their respective leaves, where as my friend, not knowing anything about them, just sees leaves on trees, that does not mean that I have created different kinds of trees. It just means that I am able to identify them by knowing more about them. Cultural preferences operate in this way too, at least to a degree. If I am taught to discern something as "true" within a particular cultural milieu, that does not mean I will as easily recognize it in others. One has to be taught these things.

[huckelberry]

Lem, your apology was not necessary but certainly accepted. At this point I am not thinking of a good continuation for those comments. I found myself thinking of the movie,documentary Marjoe for an up close look at the theatrical machinery for creating religious experience in a revival type setting. I suspect theater plays a large role in religious experience.Fallowing that line of thought reliigious experiences becomes a cumbersome and indefinite category. Should it include theater,music, arts? Perhaps baseball?

[Lem]

Lem, your apology was not necessary but certainly accepted. At this point I am not thinking of a good continuation for those comments. I found myself thinking of the movie,documentary Marjoe for an up close look at the theatrical machinery for creating religious experience in a revival type setting. I suspect theater plays a large role in religious experience.Fallowing that line of thought reliigious experiences becomes a cumbersome and indefinite category. Should it include theater,music, arts? Perhaps baseball?

I like this. "Field of Dreams" definitely fits!

Also, nature? I say that because it is Spring and although I am not a believer, I certainly come the closest to believing in miracles when I contemplate the delicate and intricate beauty in the flowers currently blooming in my garden.

[Themis]

As for eliminating the "body did it" explanation, I would say that people who are trained to identify certain feelings as divine in origin are unlikely to leap to the "body did it" explanation, while those who have made that leap often see it as the only rational explanation. Both could be wrong.

Both could be wrong, but one has a more rational explanation. The other explanations as far as I know lack any real details on how they would work. Science though has continued to explore how our bodies and the environment work. Science is even doing more in exploring the area of the mystical experience and is able to reproduce mystical/spiritual experiences in volunteers.

Yes, I was using the Book of Mormon as an example, not saying it was the only book that elicited those responses. Your conclusion, however, doesn't work, in my opinion. People are more likely to respond to the things that they have been taught to look for. That does not mean there is nothing to look for. If I learn to identify different kinds of trees based on the different shapes of their respective leaves, where as my friend, not knowing anything about them, just sees leaves on trees, that does not mean that I have created different kinds of trees. It just means that I am able to identify them by knowing more about them. Cultural preferences operate in this way too, at least to a degree. If I am taught to discern something as "true" within a particular cultural milieu, that does not mean I will as easily recognize it in others. One has to be taught these things.

If only there was a clear explanation like differentiating types of trees for mystical experiences. I didn't just limit the response to all from the person. I said a good part to all. I gave the example of Muslims and Mormons to say that they are taught to recognize things in their own text and religion then they would in other texts or religions. The fact people respond to what they are taught is good evidence the body/mind is playing a good part in the response. Maybe even the whole part.

[Kishkumen]

Both could be wrong, but one has a more rational explanation. The other explanations as far as I know lack any real details on how they would work. Science though has continued to explore how our bodies and the environment work. Science is even doing more in exploring the area of the mystical experience and is able to reproduce mystical/spiritual experiences in volunteers.

I don't agree that it is more rational. A world view that relies on the pleonastic fallacy and questionable a priori assumptions is not really more rational. It is an ideology, really, one that is based on a narrow positivism. A lot of things have combined to vault this hard materialism to the peak of intellectual fashion, but its a priori assumptions are open to criticism. It amounts to declaring a set of rules that preclude the possibility of the competition's methods from consideration at the outset. Since only the material exists, then the immaterial is not to be considered. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Having said that, I fully grant that I live and operate in a world dominated by that ideology, and my own work basically sticks to its rules. I won't waste any time trying to refine the theology of Plotinus, for example. But I don't think modern materialists have a very compelling story to tell about why there is existence. They have a better story to tell about the material that results after existence is (metaphorically speaking).

If only there was a clear explanation like differentiating types of trees for mystical experiences. I didn't just limit the response to all from the person. I said a good part to all. I gave the example of Muslims and Mormons to say that they are taught to recognize things in their own text and religion then they would in other texts or religions. The fact people respond to what they are taught is good evidence the body/mind is playing a good part in the response. Maybe even the whole part.

For all I know there is a lot more written about different kinds of mystical experiences. I am not an expert on mysticism, so I don't know. I would guess we should look in either the Sufi or Vedantic traditions for that sort of thing. Christian mysticism is probably less developed, although I am too ignorant of that to say.

In any case, I don't agree that people who recognize what they are trained to recognize are merely manufacturing experiences in their brains and bodies. That's not necessarily true. They are not manufacturing experiences anymore than the expert on trees is manufacturing kinds of trees. Language has a way of capturing a cultural experience of a certain kind, one that is not necessarily open to others unfamiliar with that language and culture, but it is not the case that our poverty in one mode of expression means that the delicious descriptions available to others are merely the product of the language. They can actually be describing something that our culture is not good at discerning for whatever reasons.

[Physics Guy]

All our experiences are events in our brains. But that doesn't stop our experiences from being representations of some reality outside our brains. When I hear something or see something, usually there actually is something there. The neural phenomena in my brain were a partial representation of the external thing, shaped by constraints of my brain.

Now we see as through a glass, darkly: that's how we see everything. Astronomy is mostly based on the fact that light carries far more information than our crude visual systems perceive. Light from distant stars can tell us an astonishing amount about those stars, when we use devices to capture more of the information in that light than our own eyes can manage.

That's certainly not some kind of super strong point for theism or anything like that. But I think it does set an upper limit on how strong a point "it's all the body" can be for skepticism. Sure, of course it's the body. What else could it be? We are bodies, dust and unto dust shall we return. Does it represent anything else? That's the question. Having a vision or whatever is kind of like hearsay evidence. Just because you heard something doesn't mean that it's true, but one can in principle hear some true things.