DiscussMormonism.com

Tal Bachman stated:

For those interested, there is a pretty long thread on the "Celestial Forum", entitled "Tal's Epistemology (and DCP's)", started by Tarski, which takes up the question of how we might know things. Actually, it doesn't do that so much, as discuss failed attempts to provide an account of knowledge. In particular, I go on at length there about what I think are major defects in the thought of Hume, Popper, and Kuhn, and how they have provided a basis for (unwarranted) modern radical skepticism. This is relevant to Mormonism in that a number of Mormon apologists over the years have sought to base their defenses on, or at least enlist the support of, those severely defective (if not supremely ridiculous) arguments for skepticism; and while even the best thinkers, I believe, ought to stay away from radically skeptic/post-modernist epistemologies (since they ultimately fail spectacularly), even more so is it the case that those seeking to defend a religion which sponsors monthly testimony meetings, apostolic assurances of "sure and certain knowledge", and epistemic promises such as those found in Moroni 10:4-5, ought to. (It might be plain ridiculous for anyone to assert, with Thomas Kuhn, that "knowledge" is a group fabrication, indistinguishable from delusion; but it is doubly so for the apologists of any "one true religion" which claims its members can have "knowledge" of that "fact"...).

So...how do we know things? One Mormon MD contributor has suggested that Mormon claims about acquiring knowledge through the "Holy Ghost" must be regarded as just as plausible as any other (critical) epistemic claim, since both ultimately must rely on sensory systems. But of course, this would draw equivalence between the claim that "the magician actually made a rabbit materialize out of nothing", with the claim that "while it appeared to us that the magician made a rabbit appear out of nothing, that it was actually a trick, a sleight-of-hand deception". Unless our Mormon contributor really does believe that birthday party magicians actually have power to violate the laws of physics, then he must concede that certain sensory impressions may deceive us - that is, they do not necessarily bequeath "knowledge" to us at all, even though we may be certain they have. And that must include all sensory impressions - even those which others say were given by God himself.

Part of the problem here is where the "deception" actually takes effect. Take the birthday party rabbit trick, for example. It is not that we spontaneously hallucinated the appearance of a rabbit. Our visual systems were working as well as they could: we were watching; we saw no rabbit stuffed up anyone's sleeve; and then we literally saw a rabbit appear, without having seen any place it might have come from. So, in cases where someone literally concludes that the magician can make things materialize out of nothing, or any analogous case, how does the mistaken belief come into being?

I suppose nowhere but in an (unwarranted or mistaken) inference, made in our minds, triggered by our observation. It is one thing to see a rabbit appear out of "nowhere"; but it is quite another thing to leap from that observation, to an inference/belief that the cause of the appearance was that the magician literally has power to create ex nihilo. That simply is an unwarranted (at least in 2007) inference; and beliefs built upon it then, will be similarly unwarranted, and most likely incorrect (that is, if correct, only by accident).

I submit that spiritual experiences are best viewed in just that way. It is not that they are "not real". Of course they are real - just like our viewing of the appearing rabbit was real. They can be positively overwhelming, life-changing even. In a word, they can be, and often are, UNDENIABLE. Are you hearing me, Mormon friends? I am saying that our spiritual experiences often are UNDENIABLE. (And certainly, there is no good reason why they should be denied).

So where is the problem? The problem, I submit, as in the case of our (correct) observation that a rabbit appeared out of nowhere, is simply in the inferences we make afterward. On what grounds are they made? Are those grounds really solid? Where, for example, did we ever get the idea, that what we call an overwhelming "spiritual experience", was the result of a particular someone, or something, called "the Holy Ghost"? Or that we should infer, from a spiritual experience had in some religious context, that that religion - and ONLY that religion - was "the only true religion in the entire universe, so true that God himself is a member of it"? (And if we make this inference, we are forced either to believe that the evidently exact same sorts of experiences, when felt by Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, or anyone else, are all Satanic counterfeits, or that those people are so spiritually defective or retarded, that "the Lord is communicating to them all the light he can at this particular moment; but when they are ready, he will impart more", etc.? That is, such inferences make us - whether we admit it to ourselves or not - the most ignorant, arrogant snobs imaginable).

But here are inferences that, I think, make far more sense (because their reach is more modest), and don't force us into becoming arrogant morons:

*"When human beings gather together, sincerely wishing to do right by God and their fellow men, they can feel profoundly moved".

*"When we hear certain uplifting, inspiring stories, particularly those which recount how principled or faithful people overcame obstacles, we can feel profoundly moved".

*"Perhaps there is some sweet, motivating influence within us, that is triggered when we earnestly try to become better people, or learn more about how we should live".

*"There is something spiritually overpowering about experiencing the grandeur of nature..."

Compare those to these inferences from "spiritual experiences", which go quite a ways beyond the experience itself:

"I felt the burning fire within me as I prayed, and that's how I knew....that Allah wanted me to kill Jews".

"I felt overwhelmed in that moment, and that's how I knew....that (Seventh-Day Adventism, Moonie-ism, Mormonism, whatever) was 'the only true religion in the world, and its leader/founder God's ONLY authorized representative!'".

"I felt something I cannot deny - like Jesus was speaking to me personally. And I knew then that I had to spend my life 'witnessing to the Mormons, who are in a cult, and who will spend eternity in hell if I don't reach them".

I think it is very fair to say that the reality of a "spiritual experience" may be one thing, and the interpretation which our minds might give to it, entirely another (another way of saying that while we might have no reason to doubt the reality of spiritual experiences per se, we always have good reason to question some of the "meanings" we tend to attribute to them); and in fact, I think experience suggests that while "spiritual experiences" are common to virtually all human beings, that the specific inferences any human might naturally draw from those experiences vary widely, and vary according to a whole range of pre-existing conscious and unconscious assumptions and beliefs about the world, which are (environmentally) very variable. That is, raise one identical triplet in Turkmenistan as a devout Muslim, and another in Jerusalem as a devout Jew, and another in Tibet as a devout Buddhist, and let them all experience exactly the same feelings during a worship service in their sacred places - and all will infer different meanings from that exact same experience. Not a one of them would EVER infer from their experience, that some other religion altogether in fact was the true one, and that they, and all those they've trusted most in the world, and all their family, are all wrong about Allah, or Hashem, or Buddha.

And it will be the same result if the triplets were Catholic, Evangelical Christian, or Branch Davidian, or Moonie, Shaker, and Mormon. Let them all be moved in exactly the same way, surrounded by their similarly faithful loved ones in their respective holy places, and they will all draw differing inferences about the meaning of that experience.

Who can deny it?

More to come.
--------------------------------------------------------

Tal Bachman stated in part:
Part of the problem here is where the "deception" actually takes effect. Take the birthday party rabbit trick, for example. It is not that we spontaneously hallucinated the appearance of a rabbit. Our visual systems were working as well as they could: we were watching; we saw no rabbit stuffed up anyone's sleeve; and then we literally saw a rabbit appear, without having seen any place it might have come from. So, in cases where someone literally concludes that the magician can make things materialize out of nothing, or any analogous case, how does the mistaken belief come into being?

“As well as they could” is most relevant to your discussion. “As well as they could” was not good enough. In addition the magician was, with deliberation, tricking the viewers. They saw what the magician wanted them to see. “Hallucination” is irrelevant. There was a deliberate magic trick.

However, there is little or no comparison to religious mythology in your illustration. In religious mythology, there is a long history of evolving stories which culminate in a present-day perception of individuals who are at a particular place in time as they embrace a particular mythology.

The magic trick occurs within a very short time and the deception is for entertainment. It “wows” the children and causes the adults to clap as they too did not see that which was the trick. But trick it was. Everyone was entertained.

JAK

Tal Bachman wrote:JAK

What I'm talking about is the moment where one comes to believe X - say, that this man makes rabbits materialize, or that s story is literally true - and why. Inferring that because a rabbit appeared out of nowhere, that the man in the top hat can create ex nihilo, is unwarranted, just as is inferring that because we felt certain certain things in certain (potent) ways, that the storyteller in the suit is reciting facts.

Tal Bachman,

Well, of course, “the moment” varies from person to person. What was the “moment” that acceptance of an earth that was a sphere? There was none. Some knew it. It took time for others to recognize the truth of the knowledge. Any information is recognized or realized by different people at different times.

There is no such thing as “the moment” as applied to people in general. In the case of “the rabbit,” it’s a trick. The magician knows it’s a trick, and the audience (except for children) knows it’s a trick.

In matters of religious myth, the process is over periods of time unlike the magic show. No one was indoctrinated just prior to the magic show. The children “see” just what the adults “see.” The difference is that the adults know it’s a magic show.

In religious doctrine, the adults are like children. They believe the trick.

No “moment” as you state exists for everyone as you appear to imply.

Indoctrination in religious myth is from cradle up. The magic show is of an hour (approximately). People “see” what the instigators of the magic show want them to see.

There is a similarity. In religion, the instigators of the show want people to see the show. They want what children at the magic show experience. They want awe.

Most parents who take their children to the magic show, tell their children the truth -- it’s a magic show. It’s an illusion. Even though the parents themselves don’t know how the magician did the tricks (or the rabbit trick), they do know it was a trick.

In religion (the plethora of religions, denominations, sects, and cults), those who run the show, are themselves deceived or they want the participants to be convinced. There is power reward. There is financial reward. There is political reward.

So while similarities may exist, there are significant differences. In religion “the moment” is likely not a “moment.” It’s a series of exposures, a repetition of dogma orchestrated with the intent to persuade. The degree to which those in charge of organized propaganda actually are intellectually aware that it’s a “magic show” is open to debate.

The “story teller” may believe the story or not. It would be difficult, absent admission, to know that. In televangelism where millions of dollars are rolling in, the organization may not care. Absent the rolling in of wealth, the TV evangelist is likely to find himself off TV.

JAK

It depends on the type of knowledge your talking about.

All types of knowledge are not of equal worth. Knowledge of the arts and sciences - of mathematics, chemistry, history, meicine, and th elike - have no direct and immediate bearing on the attainment of salvation. Of themselves they do not prepare a man for or lead him to a celestial inheritance, but they may school and trian him in such a way that he will be more suceptible to the reception of saving truth or more capable to understand it.

Anyone who been to school understands how the knowledge of the arts and sciences is obtained. A knowledge of eternal truths is obtained in a diferent manner. Arguements regarding the interpretation of scripture can be made till doomsday. A convinceing arguement can be made, but it does not convert. Nothing short of a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost will bring light and knowledge to a person, and bring their hearts to repentance.

Gazelam wrote:It depends on the type of knowledge your talking about.

All types of knowledge are not of equal worth. Knowledge of the arts and sciences - of mathematics, chemistry, history, meicine, and th elike - have no direct and immediate bearing on the attainment of salvation. Of themselves they do not prepare a man for or lead him to a celestial inheritance, but they may school and trian him in such a way that he will be more suceptible to the reception of saving truth or more capable to understand it.

Anyone who been to school understands how the knowledge of the arts and sciences is obtained. A knowledge of eternal truths is obtained in a diferent manner. Arguements regarding the interpretation of scripture can be made till doomsday. A convinceing arguement can be made, but it does not convert. Nothing short of a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost will bring light and knowledge to a person, and bring their hearts to repentance.

A Joni Mitchell song comes to mind: "......they go round and round, and the painted ponies go up and down. We're captive on the carousel of time.....and go round and round and round in the circle game."

Gazelam wrote:It depends on the type of knowledge your talking about.

All types of knowledge are not of equal worth. Knowledge of the arts and sciences - of mathematics, chemistry, history, meicine, and th elike - have no direct and immediate bearing on the attainment of salvation. Of themselves they do not prepare a man for or lead him to a celestial inheritance, but they may school and trian him in such a way that he will be more suceptible to the reception of saving truth or more capable to understand it.

Anyone who been to school understands how the knowledge of the arts and sciences is obtained. A knowledge of eternal truths is obtained in a diferent manner. Arguements regarding the interpretation of scripture can be made till doomsday. A convinceing arguement can be made, but it does not convert. Nothing short of a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost will bring light and knowledge to a person, and bring their hearts to repentance.

gaz, anyone could read the missionary discussions, the old ones i guess, in about a half hour, and completely familiarize themselves with the "truths" of salvation. if there's something more to it than that, can you give us an example?

Tal,

My opinion is that there is some sleight of hand in Mormonism's supposed testimony. I don't think many people in the church have very serious spiritual experiences. I think given the pressure the church puts members under to have a testimony, and since that is so linked to "burning in the bosom" that people tend to read things into their lives that never really were there in the first place, not even as delusions.

There's another aspect to this too, and that's the tendency for cliques to have their own little private language that all members understand yet which doesn't really mean anything. Part of that is being brainwashed by sentences at an early age by reciting and being subjected to sentences used to describe gospel things or used in prayer which the speaker just seems naturally disposed to utter but without much of an ability to explicate. A couple guys at work today were having a conversation about football and talking trash. They interacted as if they understood clearly what each other was saying, but they weren't actually saying anything at all, and if pressed, wouldn't be able to clearly explain what they were saying.

Rather than thinking everyone around the world gets positive feelings out of their religion, I would say they get familiar feelings. The way I've said it before. Clearly growing up in a small town with a little ritual of going to grandma's house every week for milk and cookies, playing some games and singing a few of the same songs doesn't hold any significant truth content. But there will always be a yearning for those feelings of familiarity which no other grandma's house, no matter how superior the cookies, might compete with. I guess another way of saying the same thing is that most people think the best music ever written is the stuff they listened to when they were 16. There is nothing that can bring back the state of mind in me, and evoke the nastalgia like hearing Duran Duran, Tears for Fears, Depeche Mode, Eurasure, even if I never listen to any of it anymore. And I think that testimony, to the extent it exists at all, is linked closer to this kind of familiarity than it is to some kind of objective trickery.

Tal Bachman wrote:

For those interested, there is a pretty long thread on the "Celestial Forum", entitled "Tal's Epistemology (and DCP's)", started by Tarski, which takes up the question of how we might know things. Actually, it doesn't do that so much, as discuss failed attempts to provide an account of knowledge. In particular, I go on at length there about what I think are major defects in the thought of Hume, Popper, and Kuhn, and how they have provided a basis for (unwarranted) modern radical skepticism. This is relevant to Mormonism in that a number of Mormon apologists over the years have sought to base their defenses on, or at least enlist the support of, those severely defective (if not supremely ridiculous) arguments for skepticism; and while even the best thinkers, I believe, ought to stay away from radically skeptic/post-modernist epistemologies (since they ultimately fail spectacularly), even more so is it the case that those seeking to defend a religion which sponsors monthly testimony meetings, apostolic assurances of "sure and certain knowledge", and epistemic promises such as those found in Moroni 10:4-5, ought to. (It might be plain ridiculous for anyone to assert, with Thomas Kuhn, that "knowledge" is a group fabrication, indistinguishable from delusion; but it is doubly so for the apologists of any "one true religion" which claims its members can have "knowledge" of that "fact"...).

So...how do we know things? One Mormon MD contributor has suggested that Mormon claims about acquiring knowledge through the "Holy Ghost" must be regarded as just as plausible as any other (critical) epistemic claim, since both ultimately must rely on sensory systems. But of course, this would draw equivalence between the claim that "the magician actually made a rabbit materialize out of nothing", with the claim that "while it appeared to us that the magician made a rabbit appear out of nothing, that it was actually a trick, a sleight-of-hand deception". Unless our Mormon contributor really does believe that birthday party magicians actually have power to violate the laws of physics, then he must concede that certain sensory impressions may deceive us - that is, they do not necessarily bequeath "knowledge" to us at all, even though we may be certain they have. And that must include all sensory impressions - even those which others say were given by God himself.

Part of the problem here is where the "deception" actually takes effect. Take the birthday party rabbit trick, for example. It is not that we spontaneously hallucinated the appearance of a rabbit. Our visual systems were working as well as they could: we were watching; we saw no rabbit stuffed up anyone's sleeve; and then we literally saw a rabbit appear, without having seen any place it might have come from. So, in cases where someone literally concludes that the magician can make things materialize out of nothing, or any analogous case, how does the mistaken belief come into being?

I suppose nowhere but in an (unwarranted or mistaken) inference, made in our minds, triggered by our observation. It is one thing to see a rabbit appear out of "nowhere"; but it is quite another thing to leap from that observation, to an inference/belief that the cause of the appearance was that the magician literally has power to create ex nihilo. That simply is an unwarranted (at least in 2007) inference; and beliefs built upon it then, will be similarly unwarranted, and most likely incorrect (that is, if correct, only by accident).

I submit that spiritual experiences are best viewed in just that way. It is not that they are "not real". Of course they are real - just like our viewing of the appearing rabbit was real. They can be positively overwhelming, life-changing even. In a word, they can be, and often are, UNDENIABLE. Are you hearing me, Mormon friends? I am saying that our spiritual experiences often are UNDENIABLE. (And certainly, there is no good reason why they should be denied).

So where is the problem? The problem, I submit, as in the case of our (correct) observation that a rabbit appeared out of nowhere, is simply in the inferences we make afterward. On what grounds are they made? Are those grounds really solid? Where, for example, did we ever get the idea, that what we call an overwhelming "spiritual experience", was the result of a particular someone, or something, called "the Holy Ghost"? Or that we should infer, from a spiritual experience had in some religious context, that that religion - and ONLY that religion - was "the only true religion in the entire universe, so true that God himself is a member of it"? (And if we make this inference, we are forced either to believe that the evidently exact same sorts of experiences, when felt by Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, or anyone else, are all Satanic counterfeits, or that those people are so spiritually defective or retarded, that "the Lord is communicating to them all the light he can at this particular moment; but when they are ready, he will impart more", etc.? That is, such inferences make us - whether we admit it to ourselves or not - the most ignorant, arrogant snobs imaginable).

But here are inferences that, I think, make far more sense (because their reach is more modest), and don't force us into becoming arrogant morons:

*"When human beings gather together, sincerely wishing to do right by God and their fellow men, they can feel profoundly moved".

*"When we hear certain uplifting, inspiring stories, particularly those which recount how principled or faithful people overcame obstacles, we can feel profoundly moved".

*"Perhaps there is some sweet, motivating influence within us, that is triggered when we earnestly try to become better people, or learn more about how we should live".

*"There is something spiritually overpowering about experiencing the grandeur of nature..."

Compare those to these inferences from "spiritual experiences", which go quite a ways beyond the experience itself:

"I felt the burning fire within me as I prayed, and that's how I knew....that Allah wanted me to kill Jews".

"I felt overwhelmed in that moment, and that's how I knew....that (Seventh-Day Adventism, Moonie-ism, Mormonism, whatever) was 'the only true religion in the world, and its leader/founder God's ONLY authorized representative!'".

"I felt something I cannot deny - like Jesus was speaking to me personally. And I knew then that I had to spend my life 'witnessing to the Mormons, who are in a cult, and who will spend eternity in hell if I don't reach them".

I think it is very fair to say that the reality of a "spiritual experience" may be one thing, and the interpretation which our minds might give to it, entirely another (another way of saying that while we might have no reason to doubt the reality of spiritual experiences per se, we always have good reason to question some of the "meanings" we tend to attribute to them); and in fact, I think experience suggests that while "spiritual experiences" are common to virtually all human beings, that the specific inferences any human might naturally draw from those experiences vary widely, and vary according to a whole range of pre-existing conscious and unconscious assumptions and beliefs about the world, which are (environmentally) very variable. That is, raise one identical triplet in Turkmenistan as a devout Muslim, and another in Jerusalem as a devout Jew, and another in Tibet as a devout Buddhist, and let them all experience exactly the same feelings during a worship service in their sacred places - and all will infer different meanings from that exact same experience. Not a one of them would EVER infer from their experience, that some other religion altogether in fact was the true one, and that they, and all those they've trusted most in the world, and all their family, are all wrong about Allah, or Hashem, or Buddha.

And it will be the same result if the triplets were Catholic, Evangelical Christian, or Branch Davidian, or Moonie, Shaker, and Mormon. Let them all be moved in exactly the same way, surrounded by their similarly faithful loved ones in their respective holy places, and they will all draw differing inferences about the meaning of that experience.

Who can deny it?

More to come.

More to come!? Good Grief Tal. Can you summarise your points in two paragraphs? You sound like Shakespeare on steroids.