Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_Themis]

All experiences come without interpretation.

I don't think that's true. When I go outside and look up I experience a blue sky but part of that experience is recognizing it as blue, as a sky and related to a whole lot of other experiences and abstractions. Experience is always given as partially interpreted. There never is a 'raw' uninterpreted experience that we then interpret. Rather we take an already interpreted experience and interpret it more. But we are linguistic creatures and our experiences come partially in terms of that.

Disagree. You are using the term pre-interpretation incorrectly. You cannot pre-interpret an experience that hasn't happened. We have instinct, but it doesn't kick in until the experience happens. Same even for interpretations we have learned to make in a fraction of a second. All still need the mind and body to make an interpretation after the experience happens.

Except that of course some make the argument that because people's interpretations of religious experiences are wrong that religion is wrong without noting the exact same logical structure as saying because people's experiences of physics are wrong that physics is wrong. (I'm not saying you are making that mistake - just noting the fallacy) But in your example that follows I'd simply note that we could replace Catholic with person uneducated about physics and get a pretty similar conclusion. That ought warn us that we're making a mistake in our logic. Often the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division.

You are noting a fallacy I didn't make, so you might be the one making a fallacy or two here. I never stated being wrong about religious interpretations means that religion is wrong. Religion is also to vague of a term. I'm sure it can get a number of things right and wrong. I am talking about consistency and accuracy of these interpretations, and how some people get very different interpretations from similar experiences.

That's true to a point although I'd simply note that in practice we do trust them quite often. (The cognitive processes that are pre-interpreting our experience) Now I personally think we should continue to inquire and question but there's a reason we trust them. In most phenomena they are extremely accurate. Once we move outside of our common experiences we must be more careful of course. But that then means continual testing, making predictions, seeing if predictions come true and so forth. Not everyone does that of course. It doesn't mean they don't know though it just means they could be more careful.

Interpretations from spiritual phenomena are terrible at getting it right when it comes to objective claims about reality. Any testing is almost certainly highly affected by bias. How do you test whether you are actually receiving communication from a spiritual being and how to interpret those sensations into correct meanings? How does one know positive spiritual feelings while praying about the Book of Mormon are really from some divine being, and how do you know they are saying the Book of Mormon is really about a real people?

[_ClarkGoble]

You are using the term pre-interpretation incorrectly. You cannot pre-interpret an experience that hasn't happened. We have instinct, but it doesn't kick in until the experience happens. Same even for interpretations we have learned to make in a fraction of a second. All still need the mind and body to make an interpretation after the experience happens.

I'm more than willing to use whatever vocabulary you'd prefer. My point is that the experience is wrapped up not just with my body but my conscious (whatever that means) recognition of it. They're all part of the one and same experience. When I see the sky I can't separate out the blue from my recognition of it as blue. What comes to me in the experience isn't contentless. It comes interpreted. I see the sky as blue. That "as" structure is very key to understanding experience.

You are noting a fallacy I didn't make, so you might be the one making a fallacy or two here.

I was careful not to accuse you of making those fallacies. (I actually had written more along those lines as then deleted them as too tangential) The danger is that when we follow the logic you outline it's very easy to make those fallacies (and often people arguing along those lines make that mistake although you didn't in that comment).

I am talking about consistency and accuracy of these interpretations, and how some people get very different interpretations from similar experiences.

Yes but my point is that the fact some are wrong (even most are wrong) doesn't imply a particular interpretation is wrong. We have to bring further analysis to bear to make that judgment.

Interpretations from spiritual phenomena are terrible at getting it right when it comes to objective claims about reality.

But are you treating "spiritual phenomena" broadly? Perhaps too broadly? Do you simply mean any experience people label as spiritual? Or do you mean something else? It's important to be careful here again to avoid those fallacies I mentioned. The other problem is appealing to disagreement within a category as evidence no one in that category knows. (This is often presented as the argument of religious disagreement but as I noted in my prior post the argument could easily be applied to other areas) To draw an analogy I might look at statistics for the chance of death due to a gun in my home. But those broad statistics don't apply if I'm not merely picking at random a house with a gun in it but am asking about my house. After all I may have further data such as my guns being locked in a safe, having taught gun safety to my children, not being drug users or having anyone in my family with a criminal record, and so forth.

The point is that as soon as you start adding extra characteristics then the probabilities change. In the same way when we move from religious experience in general to a particular religious experience then the characteristic change. We're no longer talking about religious experience in general and to argue as if we are again gets into those fallacies I mentioned.

Any testing is almost certainly highly affected by bias. How do you test whether you are actually receiving communication from a spiritual being and how to interpret those sensations into correct meanings? How does one know positive spiritual feelings while praying about the Book of Mormon are really from some divine being, and how do you know they are saying the Book of Mormon is really about a real people?

Of course those are real issues, although I'd note they are characteristic (broadly speaking obviously) of experience in general. That is bias of all sorts affects our judgments and interpretations (whether deliberative or merely given to us). If I'm communicating with someone I have to judge who they are. I have to decide if the communication is real and so forth. Admittedly the Book of Mormon is far more unusual as are the experiences, but I'm not convinced the basic epistemological problems are unusual.

[_Themis]

I'm more than willing to use whatever vocabulary you'd prefer. My point is that the experience is wrapped up not just with my body but my conscious (whatever that means) recognition of it. They're all part of the one and same experience. When I see the sky I can't separate out the blue from my recognition of it as blue. What comes to me in the experience isn't contentless. It comes interpreted. I see the sky as blue. That "as" structure is very key to understanding experience.

You still have to have the experience first. You learned over time how to interpret blue.

Yes but my point is that the fact some are wrong (even most are wrong) doesn't imply a particular interpretation is wrong. We have to bring further analysis to bear to make that judgment.

Yet you provide no way to do further analysis, and the point is that we should not trust any objective truth we think we get from them as being really true. This is important with something like the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Once someone understands this, all the evidence against the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith makes it easy to see it was made up.

But are you treating "spiritual phenomena" broadly? Perhaps too broadly? Do you simply mean any experience people label as spiritual?

Can't really make it less vague then it already is.

The other problem is appealing to disagreement within a category as evidence no one in that category knows.

That's why I ask how one thinks they know they are right. I haven't seen anyone answer this when it comes to claims of spiritual experience coming from God and some objective meaning they think they got. The experience is not reliable, nor lends itself well to testing to show a way to be reliable in learning objective knowledge about the universe. Feel free to do so if you think you know.

Of course those are real issues, although I'd note they are characteristic (broadly speaking obviously) of experience in general. That is bias of all sorts affects our judgments and interpretations (whether deliberative or merely given to us). If I'm communicating with someone I have to judge who they are. I have to decide if the communication is real and so forth. Admittedly the Book of Mormon is far more unusual as are the experiences, but I'm not convinced the basic epistemological problems are unusual.

You cannot get past the first problem of the source of the experience. Then you have to deal with what the meaning is, and how one knows it is likely to be accurate if it involves objective claims about the universe. That is why we will not see any real discussion on how one knows. Keep in mind I didn't reject Joseph and his claims from understanding the spiritual experience is not reliable way to learn objective truth. That was just the understanding I needed before seeing how the evidence shows he was making it up.

[_Themis]

When it was working well for Smith, as I understand it, he lived in a building called "the Mansion House" that was later a hotel. So it seems that he did have worldly success.

That was in Nauvoo which I already mentioned. I don't think I'd say that period was without difficulty but it definitely was the one period one could say he was at least semi-successful. The problem is that the period we have to explain is the much more difficult era of his 20's and early 30's.

Your arguments are really poor. We can find plenty of examples of religious cons, pious or not, keep on going even though they may be very unsuccessful. The world has a lot more unsuccessful religious cons then successful ones. Joseph was successful from the start because he had a following. I know several people who keep trying in real life even though they cannot get but a few people to follow them. FS makes a good point that Joseph keep to what he knew. This is a common trait of humans.

[_Physics Guy]

If we take into account the numerous sworn statements and accounts by his neighbors of him and his family as lazy, or as one neighbor, Joseph Capron put it: "Their great object appeared to be, to live without work.", the answer to the question of why Joseph Smith simply did not go back to working, is obvious. It was a lot easier to get paid for not working.

Except that then argues against Joseph manufacturing the plates, wouldn't it? That would take a considerable amount of work as would the translation. So by saying he's lazy aren't you in fact undercutting the argument that he was working this complex difficult con?

There is a world of difference between getting up early to go and pull stumps from a neighbor's land all day in return for whatever pittance the neighbor sees fit to pay, and staying up late perfecting your own cunning plan to get rich.

I really just find it bizarre to make out that Smith's motivations are a problem for skeptics. Land sakes: every crook from the panhandler with an artful sob story up to Bernie Madoff has the common combination of reluctance to work for other people and eagerness to pursue their own schemes. And they all have a conveniently self-serving mixture of sincerity and deception. If one simply drops the pious preconception that Joseph Smith was an honest man, then nothing in his motivations or situation is in any way inconsistent with fraud.

To ask why Smith didn't just work as a more conventional preacher, instead of fussing with miraculous plates, is at least the right kind of question, in that it tries to take fraud seriously as a premise, and not just as a silly straw man. This question still doesn't really take fraud seriously enough, though, because it still presumes that a con artist must think like a farmhand.

Fraud isn't like regular work, where you put in your hours and get your basic reward. Fraud is entrepreneurial. You count on doing better by being more clever. If you can think of a gimmick that will give you an edge, then you go for it. Playing without an edge is for saps.

[_ClarkGoble]

Your arguments are really poor. We can find plenty of examples of religious cons, pious or not, keep on going even though they may be very unsuccessful. The world has a lot more unsuccessful religious cons then successful ones. Joseph was successful from the start because he had a following. I know several people who keep trying in real life even though they cannot get but a few people to follow them. FS makes a good point that Joseph keep to what he knew. This is a common trait of humans.

Again the issue isn't just that they were unsuccessful but how ridiculously costly they were for him.

[_Themis]

Your arguments are really poor. We can find plenty of examples of religious cons, pious or not, keep on going even though they may be very unsuccessful. The world has a lot more unsuccessful religious cons then successful ones. Joseph was successful from the start because he had a following. I know several people who keep trying in real life even though they cannot get but a few people to follow them. FS makes a good point that Joseph keep to what he knew. This is a common trait of humans.

Again the issue isn't just that they were unsuccessful but how ridiculously costly they were for him.

I am not sure how this is an argument for Joseph being a true believer in all he was doing. I suspect you overplay the costly thing as well, but not unexpected from those who in the church a long time being feed this narrative.

[_spotlight]

Looks like Themis addressed this but I'll add my thoughts.

Except that of course some make the argument that because people's interpretations of religious experiences are wrong that religion is wrong without noting the exact same logical structure as saying because people's experiences of physics are wrong that physics is wrong.

There is no problem here. The wrongly interpreted "religious experience" leads to erroneous religions. The wrongly intepreted experiences of physics leads to erroneous physics. The one can be corrected with objective investigation while the other cannot.

Yes but my point is that the fact some are wrong (even most are wrong) doesn't imply a particular interpretation is wrong. We have to bring further analysis to bear to make that judgment.

Which would be what exactly?

The other problem is appealing to disagreement within a category as evidence no one in that category knows. (This is often presented as the argument of religious disagreement but as I noted in my prior post the argument could easily be applied to other areas)

You mean like to science? You're wrong. Have you heard of "special pleading" because that is all you are doing unless you'd care to present a way to validate subjective religious experience as a means of knowing anything at all.

[_The CCC]

Subjective experience is all we have. IE; You can't prove you like a panting by any known science.

[_ClarkGoble]

Subjective experience is all we have. IE; You can't prove you like a panting by any known science.

I'd disagree with that. While there are undoubtedly inner experiences not yet discernible by science often inner experiences can be detected. Not just by things like PET scans but also just by discerning how someone acts. Indeed often a person's inner thinking is more obvious to other people than to the individual themselves by how they act. While I guess one could debate how much of that is scientific theory, certainly there's nothing in principle making it unanalyzable by science.

The place philosophers usually throw up examples is your experiencing a pain yet not showing brain states normally associated with pain or the like. Whether such states actually occur is of course an other matter entirely. But at least philosophers can present such matters as thought experiments.

My own view is that nothing is fully inner without external signification.