David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[_charity]

There is no such thing as a spiritual witness that Mormonism is true and that this means no matter what evidence goes against it, it should be relegated to the trash bin. Everyone who leaves Mormonism talks of their former “spiritual witness” the same as current TBMS. It is really just an exercise in confirmation bias where an individual’s hopes and desires induce good feelings. This is then interpreted as God speaking to the individual, once the teenage missionaries do their spin job of convincing them this must be true.

You cannot even prove a spiritual witness exists in the first place, so until you do there is nothing to address or to avoid. This is like me telling you to address the Pink Elephant in my dreams who speaks for God. The “spiritual witness” is just the scape-goat argument used by apologists when their talk ceases to sound reasonable. Eventually real logic is completely abandoned, and they have to pull out the “God told me so” retreat.

So God told you Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian when all evidence is to the contrary? So God told you Joseph Smith could interpret scripture properly when he screwed the pooch on Rev 1:6? The list of irrefutable evidences against Joseph Smith is numerous, and all the apologists can do is keep shifting their paradigm to maintain plausibility.

Example: Oh, so it turns out that the papyri doesn’t translate to the Book of Abraham? OK, time for a convenient paradigm shift; anything to avoid conclusions that Joseph Smith wasn’t what he claimed. So let’s see, I know, let’s suppose that the Book of Abraham was actually translated from a missing scroll. Better yet, maybe the existing roll was ten feet long. Maybe the missing roll is ten feet long? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

The amazing thing about this kind of thinking is that David just crystallized why the LDS apologist is the last person who should be given any credence in LDS debates. The LDS apologist personifies all that is subjective and void of reason. You essentially just admitted that no amount of evidence could ever move you from your position that the Church is true, but at the same time you criticize critics because you think they are not really willing to be dissuaded from their positions. Every critic I know is willing to be proved wrong. The problem is that every apologist takes a wild run at debate and then eventually has to resort to the “spiritual witness” gambit.

Well hell, why didn’t you just say that in the first place and drop all this apologetic nonsense back in the sand pile? You guys act like you out to prove something and then when it turns out you can’t prove anything, and in fact the debate runs down a road where the Church is worse off than before you started defending it, you fall back on the “well go ask God.”

I have and God didn’t answer.

So what’s the excuse now?

I didn’t have faith?

I’m unspiritual?

I was bad in the preexistence?

My wife has negro blood in her veins?

What paradigm shift accounts for this?

Surely if God leads the Church and tells the Church to commit investigators during the second discussion, then this means God planned on responding to their request during that period, right?

For starters, you don't understand confirmation bias. CB does not cause "good feelings." Confirmation bias is a phenomenon of perception, not emotion.

All you have been able to say is that there is some challenge in evaluating subjective experience. Sorry, folks, for those of you who aren't familiar with the science, that is a big problem in psychology. For most of human experience, that is all we have to go on--what the subject reports his/her experience is. And then there is the problem of being able to determine if one person's report of his/her experience is the same as another person's report of the same type of experience.

Psychology has a lot more to learn about human experience that what it has been able to learn up to now. Let me give you an example. We know that the experience of emotion is a mental processing event. So why, when we experience grief or love, do we experience the event as centered in the heart? That feeling in the chest is not the heart pumping blood any differently.

The spiritual witness cannot be measured with any measuring tool that psychology has come up with yet. But that isn't a unique problem in psychology. It is only in the last few years that the science has progressed any along the road to actual physical measurement with brain scans. Primitive PET scans weren't even started until the late 1970's. It is ridiculous to suppose that just because we cannot measure something, it does not exist.

[_charity]

I can only half agree with this statement by Sethbag. I don't believe Mormons generally are experiencing much internally beyond general "being at home" feelings. I think a "testimony" is something most Mormons have been trained to report through simple brainwashing techniques, like repetition in F&T meetings and pressure to "gain" one. A testimony, for most, represents little more than the mental content of a child while she's reciting a nightly prayer she's memorized from mom and dad.

Your thoughts about what people are experiencing fall short of any reality. Brainwashing uses such techniques as sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, dehumanizing by way of degradation or loss of identity, isolation from human contact, and inculcating feelings of desertion by reporting that family and friends no longer care about him/her or believe the subject to be dead. Can you point to one of those that is in the LDS experience?

Notice when someone reports intense pain, it's almost always readily discernable that the person really believes she is in pain. It's almost, to at least a superficial consideration, undeniable. The same goes for intense pleasure. Mormons claim that their "testimony" is the most undeniable thing about their experience in life. But you notice little things about people with testimonies. For instance, F&T meeting is confusing for 90% of the people who bear their absolute knowledge. Why is it, that by Mormon standards, testimony givers are always so confused when they get up to the mic and go on about their winter in St. George, or some emotionally trying time the week before that really has nothing to do with absolute knowledge that Nephi broke his bow? I don't know anyone who ever gave a travel log when they meant to scream out in pain. Nor is a group ritual necessary for those who feel pain to get up and convince other people that they've felt something that's really undeniable.

This argument is really specious. Obviously many people who go up to the mike are not bearing testimony. They are giving thank-amonies or traveloques or are reporting meaningful events in their lives. Not testimony. But there are usually a few each fast and testimony meeting that are relating that spiritual witness we call testimony. But the sad thing is, "it takes one to know one." When someone is speaking of their absolute knowledge by the power of the Holy Ghost, those who have a spiritual witness receive another witness that what that person is saying is true.

People will flounder around and come up with anything as a testimony, because it's nothing. Despite ward efforts to "stick to the program", no one really knows what the program is because unlike pain, it's not any real kind of internal state. The church leaders can't clarify further, because they're bluffing too. But with enough community peer pressure, they can all convince themselves and each other it's something real. At best, the church can try and get across a certain behavioral model that others can mimick. But it doesn't work very well so far, in practice.

You are like a blind man trying to explain what a sunset looks like. Sorry, you just can't do it.

[_Trevor]

For most of human experience, that is all we have to go on--what the subject reports his/her experience is. And then there is the problem of being able to determine if one person's report of his/her experience is the same as another person's report of the same type of experience.

Psychology has a lot more to learn about human experience that what it has been able to learn up to now. Let me give you an example. We know that the experience of emotion is a mental processing event. So why, when we experience grief or love, do we experience the event as centered in the heart? That feeling in the chest is not the heart pumping blood any differently.

The spiritual witness cannot be measured with any measuring tool that psychology has come up with yet. But that isn't a unique problem in psychology. It is only in the last few years that the science has progressed any along the road to actual physical measurement with brain scans. Primitive PET scans weren't even started until the late 1970's. It is ridiculous to suppose that just because we cannot measure something, it does not exist.

This is one of your better posts, charity.

[_Trevor]

As skeptical as I am of God, the historicity of scriptures, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church in general, I have to say that without a doubt I experienced some of my greatest moments of joy as a faithful LDS person. I had emotional experiences that were transforming in a way that I would call 'spiritual.' I can sympathize very much with what David has said about his experience, because I experienced some amazing things as a Mormon. Unlike many others who dislike the temple, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.

I find it difficult, and maybe even undesirable, to repudiate the experiences I had as a believer. In many ways, I really don't know what to do with all of that. I still hope that there is real value in charity (kharis), and that people can progress and become better. I want to believe that I can be a better person and continue to have hope for better things to come.

On the other hand, I can't make myself affirm things that most likely just are not so. And, I have a difficult time interacting with folks who are so damn certain about things no one can be certain about, really. I find Bokovoy's approach interesting because it seems to leave room for adjustment and doubt about some things, while affirming the value of the 'spiritual' experience. Still, I would never say that feeling good about things results in knowledge of their empirical reality. Unfortunately, that's where people of faith seem to reside, and that is probably why I am not among them.

[Guest]

David I think the problem with your approach is that it makes all things LDS irrefutable, which goes contrary to what LDS prophets have generally argued. They have traditionally argued that LDS truth claims can be tested and have invited critics to do so. What you present is a paradigm rejecting that invitation while maintaining firmly that the Church must be true no matter what.

Now on to charity:

For starters, you don't understand confirmation bias.

Oh, suddenly you want to discuss this after dodging me on the other thread? Fine.

CB does not cause "good feelings."

I said an “individual’s hopes and desires induce good feelings,” and this is psychological fact. Don't pretend you have a grasp on CB because you clearly don't. And you do not have the means nor the argumentative capacity to distinguish between psychologically induced feelings, and the so called spirit of God. All you can do is argue circularly while begging the question.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon of perception, not emotion.

It is driven by emotions. Stop pretending you haven’t heard me say this already in the other thread. Emotional reward is integral to the processes of confirmation bias. Shermer said, “Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.” Drew Westen said that they witnessed, “a network of emotion circuits lighting up” during this process.

This has LDS testimony written all over it. It is entirely emotionally based and the LDS Church isn’t shy about admitting this. The Church is against reasoning and all for emotion. It has established doctrinal clichés that attack reasoned based thinking. The “arm of the flesh,” the “reasoning of men” are always in contexts that suggest Satan is behind it. Whereas God is found in how you feel. You call it spiritual because you were told it was. And I understand that it is more appealing to think God is in control of your emotions but the fact is you’re the one guiding your own emotions and you’re using them to reinforce feelings you want to have.

All you have been able to say is that there is some challenge in evaluating subjective experience.

No, that isn’t what I have said at all. Thanks again for earning your reputation as the comprehensively challenged. The fact is you have no scientific basis to call your CB driven feelings “spirituality.” At least my explanation is grounded in science; yours is grounded in logical fallacies such as begging the question. We know this phenomena occurs naturally in humans. Yet, you take this aspect of human psychology and call it spiritual communication with nothing more than your say-so supported with your own need to believe and of course, your feelings.

How do you know your feelings are from God?

Because my feelings tell me so (this is a more forthright way of saying you have a spiritual testimony)

This is circular reasoning, which is all you are left with at the end of the day.

The processes of confirmation bias fit exactly what we see from apologists at MAD. It was eerie to see how Westen and Shermer explained it because it was like I was sitting through one of their ridiculous apologetic shows where data and logic are thrown out the window. And now David comes along and leaves no room for doubt about this connection, as he publicly encourages people to actually cling to their testimony premise at all costs. Facts ultimately don’t matter. If the facts point to speciousness of the Church, then the paradigm must be changed in a way so the Church can still be true. One must bury himself into his own mind where the subjective feelings of confirmation bias rule supreme. Outside, the rest of us are living in reality.

Sorry, folks, for those of you who aren't familiar with the science, that is a big problem in psychology. For most of human experience, that is all we have to go on--what the subject reports his/her experience is. And then there is the problem of being able to determine if one person's report of his/her experience is the same as another person's report of the same type of experience.

Again, you are just perfecting the art of confirmation bias by rewarding yourself with more pleasant feelings. In this case you’re relying on the same apologetic that says we don’t know enough about Egyptian to prove conclusively Joseph Smith couldn’t translate the papyri.

The spiritual witness cannot be measured with any measuring tool that psychology has come up with yet. But that isn't a unique problem in psychology.

It isn’t a problem in psychology at all since it doesn’t exist. Psychologists have no problems explaining the “spiritual” feelings as self-induced. There is no mystery here. We know now why LDS apologists and political connoisseurs act the way they do. We know their reasoning department shuts down and their emotional circuits light up like the fourth of July.

[Guest]

On the other hand, I can't make myself affirm things that most likely just are not so.

I agree with what you said. You are never required to affirm anything you do not think, or know, is correct.

And, I have a difficult time interacting with folks who are so damn certain about things no one can be certain about, really.

Me, too. Like those who state with absolute certainty that there was no such thing as a Book of Mormon people, that Joseph never had a vision, etc.
I find Bokovoy's approach interesting because it seems to leave room for adjustment and doubt about some things, while affirming the value of the 'spiritual' experience. Still, I would never say that feeling good about things results in knowledge of their empirical reality.

I agree. However, I would have to say that people can know before the empirical reality is discovered.

Unfortunately, that's where people of faith seem to reside, and that is probably why I am not among them.

I think this is where you should apply David's theory. Change the paragdigm about where people of faith reside.

[_evolving]

Your thoughts about what people are experiencing fall short of any reality. Brainwashing uses such techniques as sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, dehumanizing by way of degradation or loss of identity, isolation from human contact, and inculcating feelings of desertion by reporting that family and friends no longer care about him/her or believe the subject to be dead. Can you point to one of those that is in the LDS experience? [/b]

although your definitions are extreme- my MTC and mission experience are closely related many of the practices you listed - 75 hour weeks proselytizing were expected - companion study-personal study- language study - scripture mastery - numbers calls which related to 5-6 hours of sleep max.. public reward and recognition for confirmation and obedience, public ridicule for those who rebelled.. the mission as a whole became more important than my identity.. once I became and AP I saw the inner workings - It was run like a business - including performance evals - sales techniques were practiced every day - the elders and sisters who did not perform well received special training and a healthy dose of ridicule from leaders in a peer group - the ones who outperformed the rest received recognition and public reward - the creative writers were published in the weekly newsletter -

If it walks and sounds like a duck - right :)
[/quote]

[_charity]

Your thoughts about what people are experiencing fall short of any reality. Brainwashing uses such techniques as sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, dehumanizing by way of degradation or loss of identity, isolation from human contact, and inculcating feelings of desertion by reporting that family and friends no longer care about him/her or believe the subject to be dead. Can you point to one of those that is in the LDS experience? [/b]

although your definitions are extreme- my MTC and mission experience are closely related many of the practices you listed - 75 hour weeks proselytizing were expected - companion study-personal study- language study - scripture mastery - numbers calls which related to 5-6 hours of sleep max.. public reward and recognition for confirmation and obedience, public ridicule for those who rebelled.. the mission as a whole became more important than my identity.. once I became and AP I saw the inner workings - It was run like a business - including performance evals - sales techniques were practiced every day - the elders and sisters who did not perform well received special training and a healthy dose of ridicule from leaders in a peer group - the ones who outperformed the rest received recognition and public reward - the creative writers were published in the weekly newsletter -

If it walks and sounds like a duck - right :)

[/quote]

Sorry, evolving, your related experience doesn't fit the criteria. Sleep deprivation by setting one's alarm clock is not anywhere near close. Positive reinforcement techniques aren't in the playbook either. And public ridicule? Shame on you if you participated in such. I know a several former misison presidents. They are not told to engage in any public humiliations of anyone. And special training? Whoopee! Sounds like rank mistreatment to me.

If you publicly humiiliated anyone you were poor Christian and a lousy AP.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Kevin,

David I think the problem with your approach is that it makes all things LDS irrefutable, which goes contrary to what LDS prophets have generally argued.

I wouldn’t define my approach as making all things LDS irrefutable, but rather all things God defines as true irrefutable. As you know, I’m more than willing to refute a traditional understanding of LDS orthodoxy when the view does not concur with the evidence.

They have traditionally argued that LDS truth claims can be tested and have invited critics to do so.

I certainly wouldn’t argue against a critic’s right to challenge LDS truth claims. I think our claims need to be constantly challenged by both critics and believers. I believe that they stand up to such challenges, even if sometimes the challenge requires a paradigm shift.

What you present is a paradigm rejecting that invitation while maintaining firmly that the Church must be true no matter what.

That’s not what I’m presenting.

[_moksha]

And arguments should rely on evidence.... The truth is that the Book of Mormon (and the Bible as well) make claims of historicity. The efficacy, existence, and many critical doctrines of the LDS Church hinges on such historicity.

Consider also...If a prophet is quoted as having taught a principle, proponents of the nonhistoricity of the scriptures will claim that the principle is still true. But how can we know that if the prophet who said that never really existed? Where is his testimony in that case?

So we can quibble all we want about the details of historicity such as a world-wide vs. universal Flood, literal or figurative fruit in the Garden, etc., but there is no truth to LDS (or any other Christian) claims if the scriptures have no historicity.

I have to continue our disagreement. Truth is truth whether it springs from history or a fable. Even if the Brothers Grimm and others were to claim the tales actually happened, would that alter the symbolic truths of the stories? I maintain they would be equally valid despite any other assertions from the Grimmites.

Now, as to every proposition being uttered by a prophet being true, we both know that dilemma of knowing that sometimes they speak as a man. Take polygamy for an example, what better principal to illustrate that many utterances are man-made, even if the claim to Heavenly origin is put forward. The symbolism of the Angel and the Sword as a metaphor for the libido seems perfectly clear to me. I understand that, on the level of the Human condition and its drives, imperatives and frailties, to which we all are a part. Knowing this, puts Joseph Smith in a flesh and blood context that can be appreciated (rather than denigrated like so many here do). We could all appreciate, if we would take the time to do so, that there but for the Grace of God go I. Even by viewing the weakness of the extraordinary, we can ourselves experience both compassion and that refiners fire.