MG & JLHPROF: From Whence Come Spiritual Experiences?

[Guest]

It's not possible to "know" something that isn't knowable. It's not possible to know anything, really.

This is ridiculous. For example, we know gravity exists. Try jumping off of a high building and see where it gets you. Can you see it? Nope. But it's there, and we KNOW IT. As with my previous example of black holes, we KNOW they exist, because of the interaction of stars around them. Lots of people said that was unknowable, too. What about viruses? What about quarks? I can go on and on. Your argument here is all kinds of silly. Science wins out, and always will.

The rest is a straw man. I don't think everyone here claims that one should abandon their faith in God for science. But if you want to convert people to that way of thinking, best admit to its limitations and that there are plenty (at this point) of alternate explanations for belief in "supernatural experiences".

[_Xenophon]

It's been demonstrated on this thread that even the believer is unsure of his spiritual experiences on any sort of consistent basis, and from that we can draw that spirituality is useless when figuring truth claims out.

- Doc

I think that’s a very clear and well articulated conclusion of precisely what this thread demonstrates.

I'll just second that I think Doc's post gets right to the heart of this thread, very well said.

[_mentalgymnast]

...a cornered rat will try to bite, especially when I read mg's last two inappropriate posts addressed to me...

I was grateful that you hadn't hopped in frequently to derail the thread. If you had chosen otherwise, I don't think we would have been able to carry on the conversation.

Sure, I was the only one defending faith, and I readily acknowledged earlier that it is a difficult position to hold. But, truth be told, I didn't feel like a cornered rat (yucch!) as much as I may have felt like I was playing one on five basketball. I may be a decent player, but when you have everyone else on the court trying to shut you down it's a bit difficult to move around and hold on to the ball.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

[_mentalgymnast]

Either I had a spiritual phenomena confirm to me that the Book of Mormon is false, or your assertions are false. Take your pick. There is no third option, because the creation of a different option would still refute your assertions on this thread thus far.

So, in essence, you're left to wonder. It is a world of ambiguity, isn't?

With this one comment you’ve refuted everything else that you’ve been asserting on this thread.
Once again you’ve reached the lofty pinnacle of being in full and open disagreement, with yourself.

That's interesting that you would say that. We do see the world differently, don't we? I see faith as being directly tied to wonder and ambiguity. Hand in glove.

Yes, in regards to much of what I said in regards to Spirit and Faith, I am left...at the end of the day...having to wonder whether or not I'm on the right path. But I have faith that I am. Some folks claim to have knowledge. That's fine. In a way, I envy them. In my case, up to this point in my life, I am one of those that has had only a few 'anchor' experiences in the realm of what would be called spiritual experiences. And yes, you're right, I can't prove...even to myself...that these experiences that I've had are demonstrably from somewhere else other than that which can possibly be manufactured within. Like Themis said, we may or may not know/understand everything that can be experienced as a result of the way the body/mind responds to certain stimuli, etc.

But I have had these anchor times where I have been left to wonder, "What the heck?" Like you, I have had to come to some sort of resolution as to what I may...or may not...have experienced. I've chosen to believe that I have received 'tender mercies' from the Lord in the way of helping me increase my faith in deity and in the restoration of the gospel. I realize that this is an interpretive action/choice on my part.

I am willing to 'go with it' because of the surrounding context of my life, experience, research, and also sense of wonder in regards to the universe and all that we observe around us in the world. Kind of similar to some of Joseph's meanderings in his early life before he claimed to have been visited by deity.

The wonder of it all!

I choose a creator/God. I choose faith. I choose to believe that God can communicate to us, but it is us that has to make the first step forward...time after time after time. And even then, we are left to wonder, "What the heck?" Was that REALLY from God/Holy Ghost, or not? And we move forward in faith, or we don't. You folks have chosen to be faithless. I get that. You have good reason for choosing that path. God has not spoken to you directly in an unmistakable way. And that's what you're choosing to go with.

Folks like myself are willing to step into the unknown and walk with faith in every footstep, trying to follow Christ the Lord. I wish that I could just hand you, Aero, and others this 'faith' that I'm trying to describe and the Spirit that goes along with it.

But I can't. I can't even prove it to myself beyond a shadow of a doubt. But there is enough 'there' to keep me engaged and faithful.

And no, grindael, I don't think I've been duped. I actually have a pretty level head on my shoulders.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

I provided a reason. It's not possible to "know" something that isn't knowable. It's not possible to know anything, really. The naturalist explanations may be reasonable, but that doesn't make them superior arguments in every given context. An individual believer chooses to believe for their unique individual reasons. It's not possible to "win" this argument because MG is operating from his own unique set of data. The naturalist explanation is also something which isn't likely observable by the believer. Ok, great, some academics observed some things and wrote a bunch of papers. That's their experience. It's not MG's experience. You argue that MG is placing his faith in men, the men that came up with these religious concepts. That may be true. But your counter-argument isn't any different. Instead of having faith in the arguments of the religious men, you want him to have faith in the arguments of the "science" men. Kind of amounts to the same thing. The only way we could "know" those arguments for ourselves would be to conduct similar research and experiments. And even then, we still wouldn't really "know." And we'd still have unique data. Basically what you're saying is that no matter what experiences MG has had, he could have had a vision, angels floated down from the sky and chatted with him, doesn't matter, no matter what he "thinks" he experienced, there is a "naturalist" explanation that is better and he should just abandon himself on someone else's say so. Not a compelling argument.

You misunderstand my posts then. I said recently to MG that my posts here are not meant to prove his beliefs false, but establish whether one knows they are true or not. It has been showed that we don't know. Naturalistic explanations are also not necessarily meant to prove any experience is natural. Only that naturalistic explanations do explain them.

Here's a fun question too. Why is it that when it comes to MG or anybody faithful, the argument around here is that they should abandon their core inner feelings for "superior" logic. However, if we're talking about transsexuals, logic and science be damned, inner feelings are all that matters! He just "knows" that he's actually a woman. And if you disagree, it's a hate crime!

The comparison doesn't really work very well. One is about feeling about ones identity while the other is a belief some of their feelings are coming from a real divine being outside of themselves. One is either true or false, while the other is true based just on their feelings.

[_I have a question]

Sure, I was the only one defending faith, and I readily acknowledged earlier that it is a difficult position to hold.

You weren’t defending faith.

You were defending your assertion that individuals could differentiate between spiritual phenomena and self induced feelings, and that a qualitative burning in the bosom was the key differentiator between spiritual phenomena and self induced feelings.

[_mentalgymnast]

So you cannot provide any reasons. I am aware of the teaching about spiritual development in the LDS church. This thread is very much about questions regarding it, and how naturalistic explanations provide good explanation for the spiritual. Most already knew this, but we gave people a chance to explain how they know the spiritual experience is from a divine source. They of course did not know, which is why some believers started to move the discussion to having to have blind faith. They didn't call their faith blind, but that is what it really is. It is beliefs in which they have poor to no evidence for, and may even know a lot of good evidence against.

I provided a reason. It's not possible to "know" something that isn't knowable. It's not possible to know anything, really. The naturalist explanations may be reasonable, but that doesn't make them superior arguments in every given context. An individual believer chooses to believe for their unique individual reasons. It's not possible to "win" this argument because MG is operating from his own unique set of data. The naturalist explanation is also something which isn't likely observable by the believer. Ok, great, some academics observed some things and wrote a bunch of papers. That's their experience. It's not MG's experience. You argue that MG is placing his faith in men, the men that came up with these religious concepts. That may be true. But your counter-argument isn't any different. Instead of having faith in the arguments of the religious men, you want him to have faith in the arguments of the "science" men. Kind of amounts to the same thing. The only way we could "know" those arguments for ourselves would be to conduct similar research and experiments. And even then, we still wouldn't really "know." And we'd still have unique data. Basically what you're saying is that no matter what experiences MG has had, he could have had a vision, angels floated down from the sky and chatted with him, doesn't matter, no matter what he "thinks" he experienced, there is a "naturalist" explanation that is better and he should just abandon himself on someone else's say so. Not a compelling argument.

Here's a fun question too. Why is it that when it comes to MG or anybody faithful, the argument around here is that they should abandon their core inner feelings for "superior" logic. However, if we're talking about transsexuals, logic and science be damned, inner feelings are all that matters! He just "knows" that he's actually a woman. And if you disagree, it's a hate crime!

Good post. A couple of quibbles, but I'll leave them be.

I like "science" men, by the way. Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and others were some of my 'go to' guys years ago when I first became 'turned on' to science and the scientific endeavors that these awesome folks engaged themselves in and then wrote about.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

...a cornered rat will try to bite, especially when I read mg's last two inappropriate posts addressed to me...

I was grateful that you hadn't hopped in frequently to derail the thread. If you had chosen otherwise, I don't think we would have been able to carry on the conversation. ...

mentalgymnast, your end-of-thread re-write lies are ubiquitous.

This is the third time now you've tried to randomly troll this particular lie, so I will just add to my two previous responses:

<trolling snipped>
MG

<more trolling snipped>
MG

<THIRD trolling snipped>
MG

[My trolling] response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion.

[_I have a question]

I can't prove...even to myself...that these experiences that I've had are demonstrably from somewhere else other than that which can possibly be manufactured within.

Which refutes your original assertion, that you can.