The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_subgenius]

Subgenius,
I'm going to bed, at this moment, so I'll just correct a few things you misunderstood and then you can tell me what you think. I'll give a more general response later.

i will wait with bated breath

Clearly, I mean "interpretation" and "discern" both in the "give meaning" sense...

what a contrary statement...to use "clearly" with the ambiguous term "sense"...especially with two words that are not synonymous.
either way...if you meant "give meaning", which is obvious, then the fallacy is the same.

Clearly, I mean "unreliable" in the sense that relying on your own self-evident experience is no more reliable than buying a lottery ticket and spending the money before the drawing.

what an absurd analogy...and worse metaphor. If that it was you mean, then your conclusion is inadequate. First, if you read my posts i never claimed that one relied on self-evident...just noting that there are exceptions to the alleged "rule" you use to support your argument.
Second, relying on self-evident experience is the first and foremost most reliable "thing" a person can do...its not flawless...but it is the best.

Except the scope of my argument makes the assumption even more suspicious because everyone thinks they've won the lottery for some strange and unexplainable reason, but no one agrees on where to invest their money to avoid the divine economy crash. They're unreliable foundations to act upon, especially if you're just peddling another eternal investment combined with powerful, but thoroughly understood emotional exploitation. It's a tired trick.

its not an argument...its speculation. and whatever you are saying here is muddying the water for both.
if the discussion is about "why does a system not provide 100% agreement among all people all the time" then that is another discussion. (and quite frankly, the person who waits for any such system stands motionless and alone forever).

We story-tellers love to jump to conclusions, especially when they serve ourselves and our emotions.

kinda contrary to the idea of "telling"...but whatever, at least we can now admit that you jumped to conclusions.

We might imagine that we occasionally jump to conclusions when, in fact, we're making leaps and bounds every day.

.....

We might imagine that we are safe and secure to conclude wild things about the experiences which brought us to the limits of our emotional minds but, in reality, humans have been pushing the limits of emotions and making s*** up about it for longer than our species can remember itself.

..... (emotional minds?...is this a separate mind from our everyday minds? or our rational minds? or our ...how many minds are there?)

Sure, to accept that humans are this way is an idea you're willing to meaninglessly explain as consistent within your own paradigm, from the lofty perspective of a world-view which explains everything and always serves itself. But can you accept this may be possible about the foundation for the paradigm you stand on?

does not compute...can you re-phrase?

That even the most faithful LDS are more slaves to human nature than they would admit?

I think this is where we part ways...you see i believe, with good cause, that human beings are capable of making choices...are able to choose to act otherwise.
Now this is a very important point - "choosing otherwise".
You see if we are not capable of that, then we are, as you suggest, simply skin bags of chemical reaction bound by the laws of the universe; we are simply acting solely by human "nature".
In other words one can never choose otherwise, because the chemical reaction will always behave in the same manner...bring about the same results; thus rendering individuality, freedom, and decision-making to nothing more than an illusion....a chemically induced illusion. Now, trust me, I spent some years following the Grateful Dead, chemically induced illusions are a lot cooler than every day life.

never the less, the essence of our discussion here can manifest itself on this key point...the point of whether or not you are able to choose otherwise....so, what say you (if i may be so bold as to claim that there is a you)...are you able to choose otherwise....or not?

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
When the orixa comes upon me while I am in a trance, is that a self evident manifestation of the spirit?

[_Themis]

Most of us understand the nature of God and religion...of things that are spiritual (see also 1 Cor 2:14)...and thus are capable of actually having the discussion which the OP initiates but still refuses to acknowledge.

All these different groups who also think they understand God and the spiritual, yet they cannot agree on what it means. LOL

prove this statement or concede that it is speculation, or rather imagination.

All expereince has to be filtered through our senses. Interpretation is just an essential part of the process. Anything not interpreted has no meaning. Most of what we interpret an a daily basis we have already learned to interpret a certain way. Language is a good example. We hear someone talking in our native language, and we get the meaning we have learned growing up as to what it means. It's not perfect and there is still different interpretations that people who all understand the same language can get. The spiritual is not really different. If we look we can see that people tend to interpret them according to how they have been taught to.

[_subgenius]

Sub,
When the orixa comes upon me while I am in a trance, is that a self evident manifestation of the spirit?

so you are asking if the manifestation of Olodumare is a manifestation?
well, i can tell you is, that for you, it sure ain't Shango!


likely it means that you have Puro Eskanol turned up too loud.


as a side note ,i thought i read somewhere that the founding fathers had a similar belief in the "unmoved mover".
Otherwise monotheism in the traditional yoruba religion is quite interesting.

[Guest]

Olodumare is the creator, my Orixa is Exu.

Why should I give any credence to a judeo-Christian theology or Moroni's promise? The idea of the holy ghost, the atonement of Christ are outside of my epistemology.

[_subgenius]

All these different groups who also think they understand God and the spiritual, yet they cannot agree on what it means. LOL

who says they have to?

All expereince has to be filtered through our senses. Interpretation is just an essential part of the process. Anything not interpreted has no meaning. Most of what we interpret an a daily basis we have already learned to interpret a certain way. Language is a good example. We hear someone talking in our native language, and we get the meaning we have learned growing up as to what it means. It's not perfect and there is still different interpretations that people who all understand the same language can get. The spiritual is not really different. If we look we can see that people tend to interpret them according to how they have been taught to.

so, you have decided to concede, ok.
Your language example does not apply.....consider that a baby cries without language and without being taught, and no one confuses that with laughter, no matter their age, culture, or literacy.
Nobody ever had a lesson nor do they "give meaning" for the pain felt when fire is touched.

[_subgenius]

Olodumare is the creator, my Orixa is Exu.

i agree with child-like...but hardly the trixster.

i think you need to study a little more about the manifestations of Olodumare.
sincerley,
Olojo Oni

[_SteelHead]

You didn't answer my question.

And I think you are confusing traditional Yoruba beliefs and Candomble.

[_Alfredo]

Damn, subgenius. I really thought you'd get it. You're being unexpectedly obtuse.

what a contrary statement...to use "clearly" with the ambiguous term "sense"...especially with two words that are not synonymous.
either way...if you meant "give meaning", which is obvious, then the fallacy is the same.

It really doesn't matter. To help you understand, consider my OP to have said, "By 'interpretation', I mean to "give meaning" or significance of experience which may justify specific religious claims."

Which fallacy are you referring to? Could you explain this more clearly and formally?

what an absurd analogy...and worse metaphor. If that it was you mean, then your conclusion is inadequate. First, if you read my posts i never claimed that one relied on self-evident...just noting that there are exceptions to the alleged "rule" you use to support your argument.
Second, relying on self-evident experience is the first and foremost most reliable "thing" a person can do...its not flawless...but it is the best.

I understood you meant there were exceptions to the rule. What you don't understand is that I've already given my response, which is implicit in my argument. This is actually the meat of what I wanted to discuss last night.

More below.

..... (emotional minds?...is this a separate mind from our everyday minds? or our rational minds? or our ...how many minds are there?)

does not compute...can you re-phrase?

You're not working with me, subgenius. You're quibbling over ideas which are easy to figure out.

Never mind the silly way I might say things. You know exactly what I mean. The experiences which bring human beings to the limits of emotion (or any experience, for that matter) are remarkably likely to produce BS. This is exceptionally evident in every culture, every era, and in every person. When an experience pushes us to our limits, we should be suspicious and examine our perspectives carefully. It's unfathomably understated to suggest that humans tend to get carried away on contrary paths with their most impressive experiences.

We should be skeptical because we know it is human nature to make crap up about the ideas, practices, and experiences we find can easily push ourselves to physical and mental limits. But the fact that humans make crap up all the time is just a detail explained and brushed aside as non-threatening to the Mormon paradigm, given the presumption that Mormons have found something special and different.

My argument is that Mormons can't explain what distinguishes their experiences from the rest without referring to concepts or explanations which serve themselves and beg the question. The only answers Mormonism provides are founded on the presupposition that experiences and interpretations which serve the Mormon paradigm are true and those that don't are incomplete or incompatible.

I don't think free-will is the "essence" of our discussion. Rather, there is a disconnect between the extremely convincing perception of a religious truth and actual religious truth. The question is how do we tell the difference? I argue there is no answer which serves Mormonism which isn't self-serving and circular to begin with. But wait, you disagree...

In your case, you tell the difference by claiming some experiences are "self-evident", and by extension, other sorts of experience must not be "self-evident"... The exception to my premise that religious experience requires interpretation is that something which is "self-evident" allows us begin reasoning at a point which would otherwise be circular.

So, in essence, we're discussing the relationship between experience and what we accept as reality or at least, our model of reality. You suggest that there are certain experiences which bear a special relationship to reality that determines some experiences, in and of themselves, are reality. In order to do discuss the suggestion that certain religious experiences "are reality", I'd like to immediately switch the term "experience" to "qualia".

Here's the meat.

The only example you gave of an exception to the idea that experience requires interpretation is the qualia of consciousness. Something about the experience of this qualia is sufficient, in and of itself, to accept the qualia as reality.

Excellent, so you've given 1 example of 1 qualia which is self-evident. You must know exactly what you're talking about.

So please, subgenius, explain to everyone how to determine the relevant difference between qualia which are sufficient to accept as reality and what qualia are not sufficient to accept as reality?


Is the qualia of God's dis-confirming answer to prayer concerning the Book of Mormon sufficient?
Is the qualia of being told by Allah the Koran is the perfect word of God sufficient?
Is the qualia of orixa sufficient?
Is the qualia of being reincarnated sufficient?
Is the qualia of being one with the universe and the transcendence of the self sufficient?
Is the qualia of being screwed by an alien and giving birth to a hybrid baby sufficient?

Where do you draw the line?

[_Themis]

who says they have to?

No one said they had to. It shows though that the experience is unreliable in providing consensus on what it means.

so, you have decided to concede, ok.
Your language example does not apply.....consider that a baby cries without language and without being taught, and no one confuses that with laughter, no matter their age, culture, or literacy.

Thank you for another example proving my point. One has to learn, usually at a very young age what a babies cry means, or how we as a group interpret it. If one has never heard a baby cry, then they would not know how to interpret it the same as those who have. it's just almost impossible to find any who have never had the expereince(except those deaf from birth). It also shows that it is more reliable on what we agree is the better interpretation of the experience then the spiritual is. It is also sharable.

Nobody ever had a lesson nor do they "give meaning" for the pain felt when fire is touched.

Oh but we do interpret it. A child never having experienced it will certainly interpret the expereince, and we can correctly guess how they will interpret it, such that they may never have to have the experience again. :)