Why does a spiritual epiphany have to mean...

[_amantha]

Dr. Wade said:

I find it interesting, if not ironic, that after you decring letting anyone tell us the meaning of our spiritual experiences, you quote Maslow, who is essentially tells us the meaning of our spiritual experiences--I.e. that they are "religiously" the same, perfectly "natural", and may be defined at "peak experiences", or "ecstasies" or "transcendent" experiences, that may be examioned by psychologists. ;-)

Yes Wade, I can see how all the terms Maslow used really narrows the bandwidth on the possibilities for peak experiences. Terms like "natural" and "peak" and "ecstacy" and "transcendent" preclude people from using other adjectives.

Maslow's intent was to "tell us" what our spiritual experiences should mean. I see that now. Thank you.

Did you find another area where you can build bridges between believers and non-believers? You are my hero.

You clearly missed my point. But, I appreciate you trying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No I didn't. You're welcome.

[_amantha]

I'm pretty sure that if you just supported your claim (which I do not think you can do), or admitted your mistake, the conversation would have a pleasant and informative tone.

For me, if charity would just show her reasoning. She doesn't have to have documentation from a source to add to the discussion, if she'd just show how her own reasoning worked to reach her conclusion. Just stating the conclusion as if it's a given is bogus.

I surrender. My library was given away a couple of years after I retired. I don't have access to my Maslow texts and a search of what is available on the internet doesn't turn up what I wanted. I can't quote anything Maslow actually said. When I was studying Maslow I was fascinated with his basic approach. Don't study the sick. Study the healthy. Which I think is one of the plusses of his work. And I remember that he did write off the extreme religious experiences which reported external events.

But I can't find it. You win.

No you don't remember that. You made it up. You can't find it because it isn't there. Maslow has no special category for "extreme" religious experiences as "external" events or any other event. CFR again.

[_wenglund]

Dr. Wade said:

I find it interesting, if not ironic, that after you decring letting anyone tell us the meaning of our spiritual experiences, you quote Maslow, who is essentially tells us the meaning of our spiritual experiences--I.e. that they are "religiously" the same, perfectly "natural", and may be defined at "peak experiences", or "ecstasies" or "transcendent" experiences, that may be examioned by psychologists. ;-)

Yes Wade, I can see how all the terms Maslow used really narrows the bandwidth on the possibilities for peak experiences. Terms like "natural" and "peak" and "ecstacy" and "transcendent" preclude people from using other adjectives.

Maslow's intent was to "tell us" what our spiritual experiences should mean. I see that now. Thank you.

Did you find another area where you can build bridges between believers and non-believers? You are my hero.

You clearly missed my point. But, I appreciate you trying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No I didn't. You're welcome.

So, you think you know better than the person making the point whether you missed their point or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Coggins7]

1. How do you, a fallible human being, recognize an infallible being when you experience one? Are you sure it was infallible? You are? How? Because it told you so? The fact is that you're not infallible enough to interpret anything infallibly -- even from axiomatically infallible beings. If you want to say that God is infallible, I.e. a priori, by definition, then you are relying on a human concept which is fallible to begin with, unless again, you want to say that God told you so, in which case--again--are you infallibly sure you were talking to an infallible being. Nope. Sorry.

You appear to have wrapped yourself within an epistemological cocoon from which there is little hope of extrication. In an argument such as this, you really do have the upper hand the entire way through it (or appear to), because all you really have to do is nit and pick and everything I say without really developing a coherent theory of why my claims should not be believed or why yours should. The task you have set for yourself is simply to question the epistemological quality of my claims without ever calling you own into question; an endless game of show and tell that only applies to one of the participants in the argument. Let me elucidate this a little further.

How do you, a fallible human being, recognize an infallible being when you experience one? Are you sure it was infallible?

The infinite regress begins. All you have to do, to each and every answer I give, is retreat further and further into the epistemological hole of metaphysical relativism that seals you sufficiently from all possible confrontation with the incongruities of your own worldview such that you never need seriously confront alternative worldviews at all. For each answer I give you can point out yet another theoretical (but unproven) epistemic problem regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge. However, your problems are purely theoretic and philosophically speculative in nature, while the claims of testimony are direct, literal and practical. You are pitting philosophical problems regarding the nature and structure of knowledge against claims of direct experience for which philosophy, for all you know, may have no substantive answer at all.

You are? How? Because it told you so?

No. Because it was revealed to me. "Told" does not do justice to the concept.

The fact is that you're not infallible enough to interpret anything infallibly -- even from axiomatically infallible beings.

This statement assumes much that cannot be known by its author regarding the epistemic attributes of human intelligence, a claim to, apparently, some certainty regarding what I can or cannot comprehend about the universe, and hence, inconsistent with the main thrust of the argument she has been making thus far. It must be the case that, if she is right, and I can never know the absolute or certain truth of anything, through any means, then if follows that Amantha cannot know that I cannot know. The same absolute intellectual or epistemological barriers that prevent me from certainty must prevent her, as well, from any certainty that there can be no epistemological certainty.

If you want to say that God is infallible, I.e. a priori, by definition, then you are relying on a human concept which is fallible to begin with

LDS make no a priori claims regarding testimony and spiritual witness. Revelation is understood as a direct communion with God; it is an experience in the fullest sense, but one that circumvents mortal cognitive, psychological, and physiological filters during the experiences. Revelation is an organismic experience, comes in many varieties and forms, and is not an a priori assumption of knowledge.

, unless again, you want to say that God told you so, in which case--again--are you infallibly sure you were talking to an infallible being. Nope. Sorry.

The logical noose you think you have tightened around my neck isn't so tight. Again, upon what basis do you claim that my inherent infallibility cannot be overcome by the power of God such that, at certain junctures, pure knowledge and a witness can be received? Upon what basis do you claim that human beings, fallible as they are, do not contain components capable of pure, direct reception of truth, and that these aspects of the human organism cannot be activated at certain times such that such reception is possible? What if God can circumvent or penetrate the natural mortal frailties that produce fallibility and transfer knowledge and perceptions directly to the self; the intelligence, which is understood as fused to but a separate entity from the body, such that the organic body is not the being in any ultimate sense?

Infallibility (a hypothetical state at best) + Fallibility = Fallibility -- there's a weak link in the chain there. Did you see it?

Yes, but this only works if you reject the gospel a priori, out of hand, without confronting the possibility that infallibility can be momentarily circumvented or repressed such that a pure reception of communication from God is possible. The Gospel makes that very central claim.

Apparently you are naïve enough to believe that you can prove your testimony to yourself. You are not a god.

But since you neither understand the concept of testimony, and have never experienced it, your strictly logical attempts at refuting it are much like a Medieval peasant looking out over the ocean and thinking that the world is flat. After all, it certainly appears that way, and, no matter how strong the logical argument (which can only handle formal connections between premises and conclusions, in areas such as metaphysics), without actually going into space and experiencing the truth for yourself, your arguments are little more than a secondary alternative to direct knowledge.

You trust yourself too much. Infallible beings (and I do not accept that these exist) can't bypass YOU in the process of communication.

These are bare assertions that imply your own metaphysical assumptions about the universe that, on their face, have no more plausibility than the claims of the Gospel you feign discredit. Upon what basis do you state that either infallible beings do not exist, or that if they did, they could not bypass organismic physiological and psycholgical filerts to reveal direct truth to the intelligence that the Gospel says resides within us?

You are part of the deal and YOU are fallible, even though you would like to continue to arrogantly claim that you could not possibly be wrong about YOUR INTERPRETATION of what is most likely a natural, human, spiritual, peak experience.

Now we're getting closer to the arrogant secularist hubris that really animates your own criticisms of the Church. Its the very fact that certain individuals in this world claim that they know certain things about the universe, about the meaning of existence, and about our purpose upon the earth, and the manner in which these claims clash with and, if accepted, make hash of your own worldview, that is really at issue here. It is, in essence Amantha, not my arrogance, but the perception of deep philosophical and psychological threat, on your part, that makes any claim of knowledge (beyond the cynical, confused and fashionable relativism that is the mark of our age) appear arrogant.

The bottom line is that you can't be certain that you have communed with an infallible being unless you want to claim omniscience for yourself, which is what Mormons do all the time.

This is not logically necessary at all. All I, as a fallible being, need claim, is the inherent ability to recognize truth when presented to the mind in an unfiltered or pure form. All I need claim is an inherent perceptual attribute, similar in function to the mortal attributes of sight, smell, sense of touch, and intellectual cognition, but tuned and calibrated to receive knowledge from divine sources. Since we are all literal offspring of our Heavenly Father, all of us have this natural attribute, along with our other perceptual tools and abilities. I need not claim infallibility anymore to the reception of knowledge by revelation than I need claim infallibility when I see a Canadian Maple and know it to be a Canadian Maple (using my cognitive knowledge and organs of sight). It either is, or is not, a Canadian Maple, and any poof that it is or is not will come through the perceptual tools I have as an organism. As a fallible being then, I can know with certainly that this is a Canadian Maple, that that is a Hammerhead Shark, that there is a patch of blue on my ceiling, that what I just ate was sweet, and, that I am typing this post at this moment. Given the phenomena involved, and the perceptual attributes used to apprehend them, I need not be infallible to have certain knowledge of certain things. There is some classical music playing on my stereo system at this moment. I know, with complete certainty the composer and the piece. I can check it, if any doubt arises through fallibility (such as faulty memory or a cognitive malfunction of some kind in some synapse somewhere), by going into the living room and observing the jewel case.

In the same manner, I, a fallible being, without claiming any infallibility whatever, can say that I know the Church is true. I can say this because I have, to some extent, developed and exercised the perceptual tools needed to receive communication from God on the matter, and communication from God is infallible. I need not be infallible to receive it; I need only be able to recognize it when it comes and separate it from the background noise of other perceptions. This is, as this perceptual ability grows, what the Holy Ghost is capable of doing, and what retreat from the world in the Temple, and through fasting, assists in accomplishing.

There are also spiritual perceptions and spiritual senses with which to obtain and comprehend spiritual things, but they must be exercised, cultivated, and nurtured to function properly, or at all. If they are not, then in mortality, one is, for all intents, stuck with only the perceptual tools and perceptual field available to the mortal senses.

Your certainty is banished and therefore your testimony. Sorry, you're just like the rest of us mortals.

Cling to this notion, Amantha, as long as it gives you comfort.

[_Coggins7]

3465n

[_amantha]

Coggins:

You appear to have wrapped yourself within an epistemological cocoon from which there is little hope of extrication. In an argument such as this, you really do have the upper hand the entire way through it (or appear to), because all you really have to do is nit and pick and everything I say without really developing a coherent theory of why my claims should not be believed or why yours should. The task you have set for yourself is simply to question the epistemological quality of my claims without ever calling you own into question; an endless game of show and tell that only applies to one of the participants in the argument. Let me elucidate this a little further.

No endless. You only have to admit that there is no absolute certainty.

The infinite regress begins. All you have to do, to each and every answer I give, is retreat further and further into the epistemological hole of metaphysical relativism that seals you sufficiently from all possible confrontation with the incongruities of your own worldview such that you never need seriously confront alternative worldviews at all. For each answer I give you can point out yet another theoretical (but unproven) epistemic problem regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge. However, your problems are purely theoretic and philosophically speculative in nature, while the claims of testimony are direct, literal and practical. You are pitting philosophical problems regarding the nature and structure of knowledge against claims of direct experience for which philosophy, for all you know, may have no substantive answer at all.

The claims of testimony are uncertain due to the fallibility of what you call "direct, literal and practical" (pure BS, by the way). Your "direct experience" is no more certain than is mine.

There truly is no problem here. You are creating one because doubt is what underpins the faith of the stubborn. Your pseudo-intellectual diatribes are not fooling anyone.

No. Because it was revealed to me. "Told" does not do justice to the concept.

Of course you are infallibly certain that it was "revealed" to you. No you're not. Stop the BS.

This statement assumes much that cannot be known by its author regarding the epistemic attributes of human intelligence, a claim to, apparently, some certainty regarding what I can or cannot comprehend about the universe, and hence, inconsistent with the main thrust of the argument she has been making thus far. It must be the case that, if she is right, and I can never know the absolute or certain truth of anything, through any means, then if follows that Amantha cannot know that I cannot know. The same absolute intellectual or epistemological barriers that prevent me from certainty must prevent her, as well, from any certainty that there can be no epistemological certainty.

No. You have twisted it. It does not take certainty to be uncertain. A paradox is neither certain nor uncertain--it is paradoxical and has no bearing on the quality of my uncertainty. You have described a third category of epistemology--the paradox--which leaves me free to disagree with your infallibility, "direct experience" claims.

Can god create a rock which she cannot lift? You can be neither certain nor uncertain about this--it is purely paradoxical.

LDS make no a priori claims regarding testimony and spiritual witness. Revelation is understood as a direct communion with God; it is an experience in the fullest sense, but one that circumvents mortal cognitive, psychological, and physiological filters during the experiences. Revelation is an organismic experience, comes in many varieties and forms, and is not an a priori assumption of knowledge.

You cannot be certain that you have skirted your mortal cognition. You don't know anything for certain about this thing you call "revelation." You are no more an authority on that subject than I am. You want to be because it soothes your ego and gives you solace and comfort, but your arrogance should be pointed out. You are not infallibly correct on this point. Come down from your high and arrogant place and exercise some humility.

The logical noose you think you have tightened around my neck isn't so tight. Again, upon what basis do you claim that my inherent infallibility cannot be overcome by the power of God such that, at certain junctures, pure knowledge and a witness can be received? Upon what basis do you claim that human beings, fallible as they are, do not contain components capable of pure, direct reception of truth, and that these aspects of the human organism cannot be activated at certain times such that such reception is possible? What if God can circumvent or penetrate the natural mortal frailties that produce fallibility and transfer knowledge and perceptions directly to the self; the intelligence, which is understood as fused to but a separate entity from the body, such that the organic body is not the being in any ultimate sense?

I have spent a lot of time considering this point. It still falls down. A paradox is all that is left which, as I said before, is neither certain nor uncertain. It is paradoxical. You can choose to believe that you infallibly know things, but ultimately you have to be honest with yourself. If you believe that you know something with infallible surety, you are deluded. You are not infallible even if god is (which you cannot infallibly know). You claim that it is possible to be temporarily infallible abut direct experience. You cannot infallibly make that claim. The paradox remains.

You are dealing in false dichotomies.

Yes, but this only works if you reject the gospel a priori, out of hand, without confronting the possibility that infallibility can be momentarily circumvented or repressed such that a pure reception of communication from God is possible. The Gospel makes that very central claim.

Again, you leave out the paradoxical nature of knowledge. You cannot know with infallible precision that an infallible being has superseded your infallibility. This is why people who have "testimonies" believe that they have to "strengthen" them.

All you are left with is a paradox.

[But since you neither understand the concept of testimony, and have never experienced it, your strictly logical attempts at refuting it are much like a Medieval peasant looking out over the ocean and thinking that the world is flat. After all, it certainly appears that way, and, no matter how strong the logical argument (which can only handle formal connections between premises and conclusions, in areas such as metaphysics), without actually going into space and experiencing the truth for yourself, your arguments are little more than a secondary alternative to direct knowledge.

Are you infallibly certain that I have never experience what you describe as testimony?

Direct knowledge is a figment of your imagination and hubris. You cannot be infallibly certain that you have not had an experience which couldn't have had different origins.

These are bare assertions that imply your own metaphysical assumptions about the universe that, on their face, have no more plausibility than the claims of the Gospel you feign discredit. Upon what basis do you state that either infallible beings do not exist, or that if they did, they could not bypass organismic physiological and psycholgical filerts to reveal direct truth to the intelligence that the Gospel says resides within us?

On the basis of paradox. Infallible beings may exist for all I know, but that doesn't make me infallible.

Now we're getting closer to the arrogant secularist hubris that really animates your own criticisms of the Church. Its the very fact that certain individuals in this world claim that they know certain things about the universe, about the meaning of existence, and about our purpose upon the earth, and the manner in which these claims clash with and, if accepted, make hash of your own worldview, that is really at issue here. It is, in essence Amantha, not my arrogance, but the perception of deep philosophical and psychological threat, on your part, that makes any claim of knowledge (beyond the cynical, confused and fashionable relativism that is the mark of our age) appear arrogant.

I am glad we agree that your main purpose in life is to threaten people with your farcical certainty. You lie to yourself and to others for the sake of your personal comfort. The true threat is not your fake ideology, it is your obsessive nature and unwillingness to accept your fallibility.

This is not logically necessary at all. All I, as a fallible being, need claim, is the inherent ability to recognize truth when presented to the mind in an unfiltered or pure form. (You cannot claim to infallible recognize unfiltered and pure truth) All I need claim is an inherent perceptual attribute, similar in function to the mortal attributes of sight, smell, sense of touch, and intellectual cognition, but tuned and calibrated to receive knowledge from divine sources. (You have made up this extra sense so that you can feel superior to your fellow human beings. You are not infallibly certain that it exists) Since we are all literal offspring of our Heavenly Father, all of us have this natural attribute, along with our other perceptual tools and abilities. I need not claim infallibility anymore to the reception of knowledge by revelation than I need claim infallibility when I see a Canadian Maple and know it to be a Canadian Maple (using my cognitive knowledge and organs of sight). It either is, or is not, a Canadian Maple, and any poof that it is or is not will come through the perceptual tools I have as an organism. As a fallible being then, I can know with certainly that this is a Canadian Maple, that that is a Hammerhead Shark, that there is a patch of blue on my ceiling, that what I just ate was sweet, and, that I am typing this post at this moment. Given the phenomena involved, and the perceptual attributes used to apprehend them, I need not be infallible to have certain knowledge of certain things. There is some classical music playing on my stereo system at this moment. I know, with complete certainty the composer and the piece. I can check it, if any doubt arises through fallibility (such as faulty memory or a cognitive malfunction of some kind in some synapse somewhere), by going into the living room and observing the jewel case.

Again, you are claiming an extra sense organ which you are not infallibly certain exists.

In the same manner, I, a fallible being, without claiming any infallibility whatever, can say that I know the Church is true. I can say this because I have, to some extent, developed and exercised the perceptual tools needed to receive communication from God on the matter, and communication from God is infallible. I need not be infallible to receive it; I need only be able to recognize it when it comes and separate it from the background noise of other perceptions. This is, as this perceptual ability grows, what the Holy Ghost is capable of doing, and what retreat from the world in the Temple, and through fasting, assists in accomplishing.

You can say whatever you want, but you do not know it with infallible certainty. Communication from God is something which you have decided to believe in beyond all reason so you can assert your authority. You are, after all, the author of this extra sense.

There are also spiritual perceptions and spiritual senses with which to obtain and comprehend spiritual things, but they must be exercised, cultivated, and nurtured to function properly, or at all. If they are not, then in mortality, one is, for all intents, stuck with only the perceptual tools and perceptual field available to the mortal senses.

You are speaking out of your _____ now. You are claiming the existence of things like the spaghetti monster and the teapot and the unicorn and Jehovah and Elohim, etc. Your certainty about your extra senses does not mean your are infallibly correct about your claims.

Cling to this notion, Amantha, as long as it gives you comfort.

I know as much as I need to know that you and your kind are the most dangerous and arrogant people on the earth. Believe what you want, but don't claim superior invisible organs.

Cling to your erroneous belief if you must, but don't evangelize it as the only truth, because despite your diatribe, you are not infallibly certain about anything. As soon as you can accept that, you can join the human race.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins:

You appear to have wrapped yourself within an epistemological cocoon from which there is little hope of extrication. In an argument such as this, you really do have the upper hand the entire way through it (or appear to), because all you really have to do is nit and pick and everything I say without really developing a coherent theory of why my claims should not be believed or why yours should. The task you have set for yourself is simply to question the epistemological quality of my claims without ever calling you own into question; an endless game of show and tell that only applies to one of the participants in the argument. Let me elucidate this a little further.

No endless. You only have to admit that there is no absolute certainty.

The infinite regress begins. All you have to do, to each and every answer I give, is retreat further and further into the epistemological hole of metaphysical relativism that seals you sufficiently from all possible confrontation with the incongruities of your own worldview such that you never need seriously confront alternative worldviews at all. For each answer I give you can point out yet another theoretical (but unproven) epistemic problem regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge. However, your problems are purely theoretic and philosophically speculative in nature, while the claims of testimony are direct, literal and practical. You are pitting philosophical problems regarding the nature and structure of knowledge against claims of direct experience for which philosophy, for all you know, may have no substantive answer at all.

The claims of testimony are uncertain due to the fallibility of what you call "direct, literal and practical" (pure BS, by the way). Your "direct experience" is no more certain than is mine.

There truly is no problem here. You are creating one because doubt is what underpins the faith of the stubborn. Your pseudo-intellectual diatribes are not fooling anyone.

No. Because it was revealed to me. "Told" does not do justice to the concept.

Of course you are infallibly certain that it was "revealed" to you. No you're not. Stop the BS.

This statement assumes much that cannot be known by its author regarding the epistemic attributes of human intelligence, a claim to, apparently, some certainty regarding what I can or cannot comprehend about the universe, and hence, inconsistent with the main thrust of the argument she has been making thus far. It must be the case that, if she is right, and I can never know the absolute or certain truth of anything, through any means, then if follows that Amantha cannot know that I cannot know. The same absolute intellectual or epistemological barriers that prevent me from certainty must prevent her, as well, from any certainty that there can be no epistemological certainty.

No. You have twisted it. It does not take certainty to be uncertain. A paradox is neither certain nor uncertain--it is paradoxical and has no bearing on the quality of my uncertainty. You have described a third category of epistemology--the paradox--which leaves me free to disagree with your infallibility, "direct experience" claims.

Can god create a rock which she cannot lift? You can be neither certain nor uncertain about this--it is purely paradoxical.

LDS make no a priori claims regarding testimony and spiritual witness. Revelation is understood as a direct communion with God; it is an experience in the fullest sense, but one that circumvents mortal cognitive, psychological, and physiological filters during the experiences. Revelation is an organismic experience, comes in many varieties and forms, and is not an a priori assumption of knowledge.

You cannot be certain that you have skirted your mortal cognition. You don't know anything for certain about this thing you call "revelation." You are no more an authority on that subject than I am. You want to be because it soothes your ego and gives you solace and comfort, but your arrogance should be pointed out. You are not infallibly correct on this point. Come down from your high and arrogant place and exercise some humility.

The logical noose you think you have tightened around my neck isn't so tight. Again, upon what basis do you claim that my inherent infallibility cannot be overcome by the power of God such that, at certain junctures, pure knowledge and a witness can be received? Upon what basis do you claim that human beings, fallible as they are, do not contain components capable of pure, direct reception of truth, and that these aspects of the human organism cannot be activated at certain times such that such reception is possible? What if God can circumvent or penetrate the natural mortal frailties that produce fallibility and transfer knowledge and perceptions directly to the self; the intelligence, which is understood as fused to but a separate entity from the body, such that the organic body is not the being in any ultimate sense?

I have spent a lot of time considering this point. It still falls down. A paradox is all that is left which, as I said before, is neither certain nor uncertain. It is paradoxical. You can choose to believe that you infallibly know things, but ultimately you have to be honest with yourself. If you believe that you know something with infallible surety, you are deluded. You are not infallible even if god is (which you cannot infallibly know). You claim that it is possible to be temporarily infallible abut direct experience. You cannot infallibly make that claim. The paradox remains.

You are dealing in false dichotomies.

Yes, but this only works if you reject the gospel a priori, out of hand, without confronting the possibility that infallibility can be momentarily circumvented or repressed such that a pure reception of communication from God is possible. The Gospel makes that very central claim.

Again, you leave out the paradoxical nature of knowledge. You cannot know with infallible precision that an infallible being has superseded your infallibility. This is why people who have "testimonies" believe that they have to "strengthen" them.

All you are left with is a paradox.

[But since you neither understand the concept of testimony, and have never experienced it, your strictly logical attempts at refuting it are much like a Medieval peasant looking out over the ocean and thinking that the world is flat. After all, it certainly appears that way, and, no matter how strong the logical argument (which can only handle formal connections between premises and conclusions, in areas such as metaphysics), without actually going into space and experiencing the truth for yourself, your arguments are little more than a secondary alternative to direct knowledge.

Are you infallibly certain that I have never experience what you describe as testimony?

Direct knowledge is a figment of your imagination and hubris. You cannot be infallibly certain that you have not had an experience which couldn't have had different origins.

These are bare assertions that imply your own metaphysical assumptions about the universe that, on their face, have no more plausibility than the claims of the Gospel you feign discredit. Upon what basis do you state that either infallible beings do not exist, or that if they did, they could not bypass organismic physiological and psycholgical filerts to reveal direct truth to the intelligence that the Gospel says resides within us?

On the basis of paradox. Infallible beings may exist for all I know, but that doesn't make me infallible.

Now we're getting closer to the arrogant secularist hubris that really animates your own criticisms of the Church. Its the very fact that certain individuals in this world claim that they know certain things about the universe, about the meaning of existence, and about our purpose upon the earth, and the manner in which these claims clash with and, if accepted, make hash of your own worldview, that is really at issue here. It is, in essence Amantha, not my arrogance, but the perception of deep philosophical and psychological threat, on your part, that makes any claim of knowledge (beyond the cynical, confused and fashionable relativism that is the mark of our age) appear arrogant.

I am glad we agree that your main purpose in life is to threaten people with your farcical certainty. You lie to yourself and to others for the sake of your personal comfort. The true threat is not your fake ideology, it is your obsessive nature and unwillingness to accept your fallibility.

This is not logically necessary at all. All I, as a fallible being, need claim, is the inherent ability to recognize truth when presented to the mind in an unfiltered or pure form. (You cannot claim to infallible recognize unfiltered and pure truth) All I need claim is an inherent perceptual attribute, similar in function to the mortal attributes of sight, smell, sense of touch, and intellectual cognition, but tuned and calibrated to receive knowledge from divine sources. (You have made up this extra sense so that you can feel superior to your fellow human beings. You are not infallibly certain that it exists) Since we are all literal offspring of our Heavenly Father, all of us have this natural attribute, along with our other perceptual tools and abilities. I need not claim infallibility anymore to the reception of knowledge by revelation than I need claim infallibility when I see a Canadian Maple and know it to be a Canadian Maple (using my cognitive knowledge and organs of sight). It either is, or is not, a Canadian Maple, and any poof that it is or is not will come through the perceptual tools I have as an organism. As a fallible being then, I can know with certainly that this is a Canadian Maple, that that is a Hammerhead Shark, that there is a patch of blue on my ceiling, that what I just ate was sweet, and, that I am typing this post at this moment. Given the phenomena involved, and the perceptual attributes used to apprehend them, I need not be infallible to have certain knowledge of certain things. There is some classical music playing on my stereo system at this moment. I know, with complete certainty the composer and the piece. I can check it, if any doubt arises through fallibility (such as faulty memory or a cognitive malfunction of some kind in some synapse somewhere), by going into the living room and observing the jewel case.

Again, you are claiming an extra sense organ which you are not infallibly certain exists.

In the same manner, I, a fallible being, without claiming any infallibility whatever, can say that I know the Church is true. I can say this because I have, to some extent, developed and exercised the perceptual tools needed to receive communication from God on the matter, and communication from God is infallible. I need not be infallible to receive it; I need only be able to recognize it when it comes and separate it from the background noise of other perceptions. This is, as this perceptual ability grows, what the Holy Ghost is capable of doing, and what retreat from the world in the Temple, and through fasting, assists in accomplishing.

You can say whatever you want, but you do not know it with infallible certainty. Communication from God is something which you have decided to believe in beyond all reason so you can assert your authority. You are, after all, the author of this extra sense.

There are also spiritual perceptions and spiritual senses with which to obtain and comprehend spiritual things, but they must be exercised, cultivated, and nurtured to function properly, or at all. If they are not, then in mortality, one is, for all intents, stuck with only the perceptual tools and perceptual field available to the mortal senses.

You are speaking out of your _____ now. You are claiming the existence of things like the spaghetti monster and the teapot and the unicorn and Jehovah and Elohim, etc. Your certainty about your extra senses does not mean your are infallibly correct about your claims.

Cling to this notion, Amantha, as long as it gives you comfort.

I know as much as I need to know that you and your kind are the most dangerous and arrogant people on the earth. Believe what you want, but don't claim superior invisible organs.

Cling to your erroneous belief if you must, but don't evangelize it as the only truth, because despite your diatribe, you are not infallibly certain about anything. As soon as you can accept that, you can join the human race.

Its clear at this point, as you have been reduced, for the most part, to making the same assertions over and over and over again in a mantra-like fashion, and are not rationally engaging my arguments or attempting to refute them logically, that you are not willing, or not capable philosophically, of a philosophically creative or rigorous exploration of either my views or your own, which, upon cursory philosophical inspection, appear much more like unexamined prejudices or defense mechanisms against unwelcome alternate world views, than a serous critique of LDS claims.

You have not so much as attempted a refutation or philosophical analysis of my major points above. All you do, and apparently, all you intend to do, is restate over and over again your main point that there can be no such things as certainty. You have not presented a coherent body of arguments at this point that would lead one to believe that such a claim is necessarily true.

You have yet to provide a critical substantiation of your a priori rejection of Gospel claims, a substantiation that would be necessary as a foundation for any criticism of specific Gospel doctrines, such as revelation and witness. Asserting the same claims over and over and over again, as if sheer repetition will make them true, and telling people they are full of hubris and arrogance, while evading philosophical substance, will not do.

The claims of testimony are uncertain due to the fallibility of what you call "direct, literal and practical" (pure BS, by the way). Your "direct experience" is no more certain than is mine.

You here simply make the claim yet again, that their is no such thing as infallible or certain knowledge, a claim which you here clearly take to be both infallible and certain. How so?


I said:

This statement assumes much that cannot be known by its author regarding the epistemic attributes of human intelligence, a claim to, apparently, some certainty regarding what I can or cannot comprehend about the universe, and hence, inconsistent with the main thrust of the argument she has been making thus far. It must be the case that, if she is right, and I can never know the absolute or certain truth of anything, through any means, then if follows that Amantha cannot know that I cannot know. The same absolute intellectual or epistemological barriers that prevent me from certainty must prevent her, as well, from any certainty that there can be no epistemological certainty.

No. You have twisted it. It does not take certainty to be uncertain. A paradox is neither certain nor uncertain--it is paradoxical and has no bearing on the quality of my uncertainty. You have described a third category of epistemology--the paradox--which leaves me free to disagree with your infallibility, "direct experience" claims.

Amantha nicely, but tortuously, dodges the crux of the matter regarding her arguments, which is that she is claiming certain knowledge that certain knowledge is impossible, a logical contradiction that implies the existence of at least one infallible and certain claim-that there are no infallible and certain claims. If at least one exists, of course, then there is no reason to believe that other kinds of certainty are not possible. This is, indeed, both the relativist's and the nihilist's paradox; that their claims to certain knowledge of the absolute uncertainty of all knowledge is self negating. A cursory inspection of the many universal affirmative and negative propositions Amantha makes in criticizing me should be enough to convince.

I said:

LDS make no a priori claims regarding testimony and spiritual witness. Revelation is understood as a direct communion with God; it is an experience in the fullest sense, but one that circumvents mortal cognitive, psychological, and physiological filters during the experiences. Revelation is an organismic experience, comes in many varieties and forms, and is not an a priori assumption of knowledge.

You cannot be certain that you have skirted your mortal cognition. You don't know anything for certain about this thing you call "revelation." You are no more an authority on that subject than I am. You want to be because it soothes your ego and gives you solace and comfort, but your arrogance should be pointed out. You are not infallibly correct on this point. Come down from your high and arrogant place and exercise some humility.

I explained at length how it might be possible for God to "skirt" mortal cognition, but she does not engage the arguments. Instead, she simply asserts, again and again, that "you cannot" etc. Yet the entire basis for her assertions regarding the impossibility of certain in communication with God is far from...certain.

I have spent a lot of time considering this point. It still falls down. A paradox is all that is left which, as I said before, is neither certain nor uncertain. It is paradoxical. You can choose to believe that you infallibly know things, but ultimately you have to be honest with yourself. If you believe that you know something with infallible surety, you are deluded. You are not infallible even if god is (which you cannot infallibly know). You claim that it is possible to be temporarily infallible abut direct experience. You cannot infallibly make that claim. The paradox remains.

From whence comes the paradox in my views? Hard to say, based on her bare assertions and lack of logical argument. I'm deluded. I'm not honest with myself. Even if God is infallible, I cannot know that he is. I cannot make the claim that a communication from God can be known infallibly. Why does Amanthat think so? We don't know yet, as she as refrained from a coherent argument detailing just why her beliefs here are more acceptable than mine. We do know, however, that she believes it, and we know that she knows, infallibly, that my testimony cannot be infallible. She has yet to be logically consistent in the application of her own basic criticism of the Church here.

You are dealing in false dichotomies.

This is a psychological perception on your part, not something derived from any evidence, at least, given your arguments thus far. What we are dealing with is the fact that your a making a nihilist argument against the concept of testimony, the logical necessities of which you are unwilling to follow to their inevitable conclusion.

This next steps perhaps into the realm of post modernism, and hence, into the realm of the the rejection of the intellect as a viable means of negotiating the world.

I said:

Yes, but this only works if you reject the gospel a priori, out of hand, without confronting the possibility that infallibility can be momentarily circumvented or repressed such that a pure reception of communication from God is possible. The Gospel makes that very central claim.

Again, you leave out the paradoxical nature of knowledge. You cannot know with infallible precision that an infallible being has superseded your infallibility. This is why people who have "testimonies" believe that they have to "strengthen" them.

Word games without logical connection or content? Yes indeed. Again she simply restates her mantra and leaves the field of philosophical battle, as those infected with post modern modes of thought most often do.

Are you infallibly certain that I have never experience what you describe as testimony?

No, you may have, but the general thrust of your statements here indicates that you probably have not.

Direct knowledge is a figment of your imagination and hubris. You cannot be infallibly certain that you have not had an experience which couldn't have had different origins.

More of the mantra, to which I reply, upon what criteria do you make these claims? Notice the form of the statements being made.

1. Direct knowledge is a figment of your imagination and hubris.

2. You cannot be infallibly certain that you have not had an experience which couldn't have had different origins

A universal affirmative and universal negative proposition. Here she claims that all things part of the class "direct knowledge" are never a part of the class of things that are a part of real cognition or perception. She then claims that nothing within the class "experiences" can ever be infallibly known as to its nature or origin.

Are these claims certain, and can they be known with certainty, or are they contingent?


I snipped the rest because it was just further repetition of the mantra.

[_amantha]

Coggins7 would have us believe that I have not satisfied the logical consequences of the certainty/uncertainty paradox. He suggests that I cannot be certain that other people can't be certain. He is right for I am a fallible human being. Uncertainty is certainly something we can both agree upon.

Yet Coggins7 would also have us believe that he and many people like him are certain about receiving a communication from an infallible supernatural being concerning that being's plan. If my uncertainty is paradoxically impossible, how is it that Coggins7 can side step the same consequence of his certainty. It is a paradox which belongs as much to religion as to philosophy in general.

This paradox does not lend itself well to certainty so who is being inconsistent here?

Coggins7 also argued that I discounted the value of what he termed, "direct knowledge," a phrase which is better expressed as direct experience.

Direct experience as distinct from objective knowledge is not in dispute here. The dispute is about the characterization of the experience. A person may have an experience and believe any number of things about it, but certainty about that experience can only be claimed if an infallible being is able to intervene or if the person herself is infallible.

This divine intervention is the possibility that Coggins7 would have us accept since (he believes) we cannot be certain that it is impossible. But is he certain that we cannot be uncertain?

So back and forth we go. Coggins7 claims that I cannot be certain about my uncertainty and I claim that he cannot be certain about his certainty. Who is right?

The result is a paradox as I unsuccessfully tried to explain to Coggins7 in my last post. I don't think he understood or he didn't want to understand. He merely relegated paradox to the realm of post-modernism and nihilism and then claimed victory.

The truth is that the paradox itself is more amenable to uncertainty than it is to certainty. The paradox does not give me more information about infallible beings or suggest that people can be infallible about a small list of things under extremely peculiar and illogical circumstances.

This is the logic which I offered Coggins7 before, but he already has an idea in his mind about what is logical and what is not.

I call on Coggins7 to demonstrate how this paradox helps his case for certainty about his infallible testimony.

Until then, his certainty about his testimony will remain, and justifiably so, in question.


As to the claim that an infallible beingS can communicate infallibly with fallible beings. Let's analyze that:

1. Infallible beings exist.
2. Infallible beings can communicate infallibly.
3. Infallible communications cannot fail.
4. Fallible beings exist.
5. Fallible beings cannot communicate infallibly.
6. Humans are fallible beings.

We must begin with numbers 4, 5 and 6 because numbers 1, 2 and 3 cannot be known to be true until AFTER the communication occurs. It is easy to accept that numbers 4 and 6 are self-evident. We have direct evidence and direct experience of 4, 5 and 6. Therefore there is a great deal of certainty about 4, 5 and 6. Coggins7 would have us exempt 5 under his special circumstance.

But there is no special circumstance because numbers 2 and 5 are contradictory. A paradox is instantly formed. Again, its the old question, can God create a rock which she cannot lift?

For a human being to become "temporarily" infallible for the purposes of receiving an infallible communique from an infallible being is nonsense. After the temporary infallibility has ended, the human being must revert to her state of fallibility thus rendering the infallible communication null. The human, in her now fallible state, must fail to be certain about the infallible communication. Thus, the infallible communication fails to persist. The infallible communication is vulnerable to the ravages of time and cannot thereafter be considered infallible--BECAUSE IT FAILS. The paradox remains.

There is no resolving this paradox no matter how much Coggins7 would like to claim that his god can.

Therefore human beings can have no absolute and certain knowledge--direct or not--concerning infallible beings because of this paradoxical barrier. The paradox itself is the proof that certainty and uncertainty are ultimately one great UNCERTAINTY. Unless, of course, Coggins7 can logically show how a paradox aids in his certainty.