Joseph Antley and Mormon Epistemology

[_Tarski]

Mr. Stak,

Good points. I think I can fully resolve the issue.

As I've stated before, I am a spiritual eliminativist. This especially means that I do not believe people feel the HG, nor do they feel anything that they are misinterpreting as the HG, rather, they are just making it all up whole cloth. I do believe there is the occasional extraordinary experience, but these are not frequent enough to work as the backbone to the Mormon testimony across millions of people. You know how missionaries are always "identifying" the spirit? Well, does anyone need to have someone "identify" that they are seeing or hearing? No. These are lessons in fabrication. This goes on like crazy at the MTC where a good deal if not the majority of initiates are confused about the whole testimony thing. They aren't sure if they really have one. Well, within weeks, they are declaring all the amazing things they've felt to investigators and known their whole lives.

Testimonies are "don't ask, don't tell." One is not brainwashed per se, but submits to a culture where bullshitting about one's knowledge of gospel things is the expectation and one learns this behavior. Privately, it's common for members to share doubts.

Interestingly, the reason folks don't subject these "feelings" to skepticism isn't because they are protective, rather, it's because they know they are just making up the report of feelings and there is nothing to be skeptical about. Folks will subject their sight or hearing to skepticism. They will subject their love of spouse etc. to skepticism as well. They would subject their spiritual experiences to skepticism too under the right circumstances if they really had these experiences. But they aren't. This is a powerful position for the Church to be in. If real feelings were involved, then second guessing could become a problem. But once you submit to the b***s*** club, you're good. unless...

You know how Brigham Young said, "pray you never see an angel, those who have, left the Church?" (or similar) This is ridiculous. If folks really saw an angel they'd be far less likely to leave. But in the b***s*** club, those who spin unusually bizarre tales strain the tacit "don't ask don't tell" agreement. Why do they do it? Self-promotion, vying for increased influence, power, or even attention from the opposite sex. It's a risk. If the risk doesn't pay off, if the person doesn't get the promotion or get the girl, then it might not be worth it to stick around, "screw you guys, I'm going home."

Good post and quite interesting.
I agree partially. I would say that the fabrication is sometimes closer to confabulation in that they are not fullly aware that they are making it up. Also, there are sometimes feelings but these are just whatever feelings one can grope around inside oneself and find when the confabulation starts.
Obviously old ladies and old men are crying a lot in church and this is a sign that there is some feeling happening. Unfortunately, it is an ordinary feeling and a trumped up one at that.

I also agree that we get lessons on how and when to start the fabricating. We learn to BS ourselves too and this seals the deal.

Of course, some, maybe many, Mormons have at some point in their lives had an unusual feeling of the kind almost anyone has. In such cases it may take a moment to make a mundane attribution or self description such as "I am elated" or "I am dizzy" or "I am high". The well trained Mormon will use that slight delay to insert an attribution to the Holy Ghost if there is the slightest excuse--an excuse such as that fact the person is in church or was just praying.

When I told people about feeling the Holy Ghost, I was BS-ing but the first person I BS-ed was myself. Once you realize it, from then on it becomes apparent that others are doing it too--there are many little signs.


By the way, I suspect a certain amount of BSing even when one tells someone that they are in love with them and so forth. These are learned roles we play.
Shakespeare was right.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

"…there are some things that I choose not to be skeptical about: Mormonism and all of its major facets, . . . [SNIP!]"

The tithe-collectors at the C.O.B. must LOVE people like Young Antley.

Srly?

If I recall correctly he comes from either a part member or inactive family and given that he is a college student, I doubt he nor his family pay much tithing; if any at all.

Additionally, with his choice to not serve a mission, odds are not in his favor to even become a significant tithe payer as he will likely become inactive if he does not completely resign his membership all together.

I wonder if he tires of the questions about his age being smack in the middle of the average full time missionary. Or the relentless finger search for garmie lines on the leg and arm by the few horny young women who dare date someone that is not an RM.

I could be wrong. Time will tell.

[_Joseph Antley]

I could be wrong.

Understatement of the year?

[_Gadianton]

When I told people about feeling the Holy Ghost, I was BS-ing but the first person I BS-ed was myself. Once you realize it, from then on it becomes apparent that others are doing it too--there are many little signs.

Indeed. But, remember The Candle of the Lord? You were free to, and encouraged, to BS others before you succeeded in BSing yourself. I believe the formula works, not because when lying to an investigator you all of a sudden, after 20 years of being in the Church, get the big C (confirmation), but because you grow accustomed to lying and it's easier to do it the second time.

When I was a zone leader, I had several missionaries express doubts about their testimony. Though I had lied on several occasions in the past with investigators and implied that I had had "experiences" as BKP instructs, I did not take this route with these missionaries. The response that seemed to work very well, was to turn the tables and tell them that they already had a testimony, but just needed to recognize it.

Again, what is the likelihood that after all the years of participation in the Church at mission age that you never had an experience that "confirmed" the truth, but now all of a sudden this one night you prayed in prayed in the MTC or after tracting all night getting sacked, and snagged the carrot? If that "one experience" counted, then there's likely a string of random events in the past that probably count to.

Some folks, including ex-Mo's, will say that there was one experience that stuck out, that was "it". I'm open to this possibility as an exception, but not the rule. I (1) don't think that's the way it works for most people and (2) believe that the majority of folks who claim the big C would have been just as active absent the big C. That's not what did the work, in my opinion.

By the way, I suspect a certain amount of BSing even when one tells someone that they are in love with them and so forth. These are learned roles we play.
Shakespeare was right.

Lol! A formidable response. There is some truth to this I think, but, the myth is based on a very real, very powerful feeling, sexual urge. The myth sort of apologizes for this. I think that the situation of testimony is different.

[_brade]

Even if I accept the idea that having a belief is tantamount to a ( token of a) proposition in one's head with an assigned truth value, I still don't see how it differs in practice from BA. After all, the difference may just be that we are not privy to the presumably unconscious processes that led up to the conviction. They may still just be something like associations etc.
I don't see how one can tease the two notions apart since a large portion of what leads to conscious thoughts, convictions and speech acts is quite unconscious subterranean brain activity.

I'm merely offering these two different methodologies as methodologies offered by their respective practitioners. BDA differs from BA because its practitioners' descriptions of it are explicit that there are no thought processes that led up to convictions acquired by that method. Now, they might certainly be wrong about whether there were thought processes that led up to their convictions, but their claims are nonetheless that there were none. Practitioners of BA (I use to be one) claim, rather, that they reasoned to beliefs by virtue of certain kinds of associations between specific beliefs, behaviors and good feelings.

I guess what I'm trying to do is get both types of truth-getting methodologies clear, then ask whether either one, both, or neither form a reasonable basis for the relevant type of religious beliefs.

[_brade]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. Flesh it out a bit more for me. I'm getting slow.

Sure...

I guess what I’m getting at, is that one of the overall goals of epistemology is knowledge, and an essential component to knowledge is truth. It seems to me, that the critiques of BDA given in this thread presume an evidentialist epistemology (no doubt, spurred on by Antley’s words), but I assumed BDA would have a role in an epistemology that rejects evidentialism.

Yes, I think you're right that BDA's epistemology is anti-evidentialist. I think a defender of BDA would want to say something like this. I find myself with many putatively reasonably beliefs which I formed without any sort of argument. For example, when I walk into a new room with a table in it I find myself with the belief that there is a table over there. I didn't arrive at that belief through argument, rather my properly functioning mind being acted upon by the right kind of sensory data from the external world found itself with the belief. Likewise, my properly functioning mind being acted upon by God in the right sort of way found itself with the belief that God had so acted upon me to give me the belief the he exists. If it's reasonable for me to have beliefs about tables and chairs and things by being acted upon (in a manner of speaking) by the world, why isn't it reasonable for me to have beliefs about God - that he exists - by being acted upon in like manner?

If evidentialism is rejected, I’m wondering what cognitive faculties must be operating in a given environment to produce the warrant needed for Antley to set aside those beliefs as being immune to skepticism.

I'm not sure how to answer this. Keep in mind I'm trying to play devil's advocate hear for BDA. I think what a BDA defender would say is that the cognitive faculties that must be operating to produce the warrant needed to set aside certain religious beliefs as being immune to skepticism are the same ones needed to produce the warrant needed to set aside beliefs about tables and chairs and things as being immune to skepticism.

And another thought I just had, given what the Book of Mormon says about faith, could a TBM even get away with evidentialist epistemology?

Just for clarity here's a formulation of the argument against the rationality of religious belief (certainly not the best one, but I hope it'll do):

P1: It is irrational to hold religious beliefs without sufficient evidence.
P2: It's false that there is sufficient evidence for religious beliefs.
C: Therefore, It is irrational to hold religious beliefs.

So, I think I already suggested that Mormons seem more committed to BA than BDA. Most Mormons seem to tell BA stories about how they learned that such and such Mormon claim is true. Indeed, I think some things that are taught about feeling and recognizing the spirt imply a BA model. I bring this up because I think BA is a rejection of P2. I think a person who accepts BA and believes that they have knowledge from BA type experiences will want to say that there is sufficient evidence for their religious beliefs - the evidence from the Holy Ghost that comes in the form of powerful experiences that occur during certain kinds of religious activities. The association between the feelings and the activity is sufficiently strong that it confirms the truth of certain relevant propositions that are, so to speak, floating around in the environment.

A BDA defender will reject P1. What they want to say is that it's just not true that all reasonable beliefs need to be supported by evidence that can be articulated as in an argument - e.g. perceptual beliefs - and religious beliefs in particular, when caused by God, will not come with the type of evidence that can be articulated as in an argument but will be, like perceptual beliefs, reasonable.

If what I've said is right, then BA is evidentialist and BDA is not. As to your question, which I've failed to address up to this point, I'm not sure that what the Book of Mormon says precludes an evidentialist Mormon epistemology. In fact, in some cases I think its teachings are consistent with that sort of theory. Of course, it could turn out to be the case that Mormonism does indeed teach an evidentialist epistemology and it happens to be a really bad one.