MG & JLHPROF: From Whence Come Spiritual Experiences?

[_mentalgymnast]

You, zerinus, appear to be firmly in the *1* camp, along with MG and JLHPROF.

I'm comfortable with 1 and 2. Although I think there are some mischaracterizations embedded along the way.

Your OP question seems to imply either/or. Is that your intent?

Nice job describing brain function in your OP. Brain science is interesting stuff.

The way I see it is if there is a creator/God, He is going to communicate with us in any way He can. And since we have brain/nervous systems, He can and will use that conduit, language and mental maps included, as a 'carrier' for 'Spirit'. Although when doing so I think that this sensory system can go into 'system overload' when the Spirit is 'strong', so to speak.

Generally,however, those spiritual impressions are 'whispers' and intimations that go where the 'wind listeth', as scriptural language says.

Brain/heart/Spirit...they're all interrelated, in my opinion.

And it's important to remember that much of what we may call spiritual phenomena IS simply a construct/fabrication of the mind. It takes time and practice to differentiate between pure mental processes and those impressions on the mind that may come/originate elsewhere.

I have always struggled with that along with, I'm sure, many others. I do believe that it may well be true, however, that there are things we can do in order to be more open conduits to spiritual impressions from deity.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

If there is a God/Creator/All Powerful Deity Who Was Once A Man Like Us etc who has the capability of communicating with each of us individually, why would he choose the exact same mechanism for communication as is used in confirmation bias?

Couldn’t he send me a text/e mail/pick up the phone/meet up for a coffee/make some words appear on a rock I’ve found recently/send me an agressively assertive angel etc?

[_zerinus]

If there is a God/Creator/All Powerful Deity Who Was Once A Man Like Us etc who has the capability of communicating with each of us individually, why would he choose the exact same mechanism for communication as is used in confirmation bias?

Couldn’t he send me a text/e mail/pick up the phone/meet up for a coffee/make some words appear on a rock I’ve found recently/send me an agressively assertive angel etc?

God communicates with man according to the degree of their faith. If your faith is as good as the Brother of Jared's, you will receive a revelation that is as good as his (Ether 3). But if your faith is less, you will receive something that is more commensurate with your faith (and if your faith is zero, then you get nothing). God would be doing you a disservice to give you a revelation that is greater than is consistent with your faith, because if you rejected it, that would then bring you under a greater condemnation. It is for your own good that he doesn't do that:

Alma 32:

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

[Guest]

You, zerinus, appear to be firmly in the *1* camp, along with MG and JLHPROF.

I'm comfortable with 1 and 2. Although I think there are some mischaracterizations embedded along the way.

Your OP question seems to imply either/or. Is that your intent?
<SNIP>
Regards,
MG

As sock puppet indicated upthread, the OP provides a rational and evidence based explanation for transcendent phenomenon experienced by human beings. Sock then stated that one can choose what to believe.

What do you think the best evidence indicates regarding the reality of the global flood of Noah in the Old Testament?

What is the best explanation for the atmospheric phenomenon of rainbows?

Do you think that some rainbows are caused by refraction and reflection of sunlight by water droplets in the atmosphere and that God himself places one in the sky now and then to remind humankind of his biblical covenant to never again destroy the Earth by flood?

Either there was a flood that covered the entire Earth within the last 10,000 years, or there was not.

Either rainbows are caused by refraction and reflection of sunlight through water droplets in the atmosphere, or it they are not.

Either Joseph Smith has sex with women to whom he was not legally married, including young teenagers, or he did not.

Are your beliefs based on the best evidence or the emotions and feelings that make you the most comfortable?

You can choose your own beliefs, but you can't alter the facts or the reality they represent.

If one does not base their beliefs on the best evidence, especially when the weight of evidence can leave no reasonable doubt as to reality, then they are not being honorable or fair to themselves or to others to whom they profess their false beliefs.

Just consider all of the RMs who have expressed regret on this board regarding the falsehoods they preached to their investigators while on their missions, especially when overseas.

[_I have a question]

If there is a God/Creator/All Powerful Deity Who Was Once A Man Like Us etc who has the capability of communicating with each of us individually, why would he choose the exact same mechanism for communication as is used in confirmation bias?

Couldn’t he send me a text/e mail/pick up the phone/meet up for a coffee/make some words appear on a rock I’ve found recently/send me an agressively assertive angel etc?

God communicates with man according to the degree of their faith. If your faith is as good as the Brother of Jared's, you will receive a revelation that is as good as his (Ether 3). But if your faith is less, you will receive something that is more commensurate with your faith (and if your faith is zero, then you get nothing). God would be doing you a disservice to give you a revelation that is greater than is consistent with your faith, because if you rejected it, that would then bring you under a greater condemnation. It is for your own good that he doesn't do that:

Replace ‘faith’ with ‘confirmation bias’ and your paragraph still works.

[_sock puppet]

The way I see it is if there is a creator/God, He is going to communicate with us in any way He can.

If god exists, why doesn't s/he just open her/his trap and talk to each of us? Isn't that among the any ways s/he can?

[_zerinus]

Replace ‘faith’ with ‘confirmation bias’ and your paragraph still works.

It doesn't actually.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, how do you talk exoteric reality with a person who wholly subscribes, probably unknowingly, to hidden esotericism?

Zerinus is kind of in the NL camp when it comes to believing he has a deep understanding of universal truths. However, they're wholly known only to him and can only be understood by accepting his assertions as a default truth position. And by understood I mean you just think your esotericism probably aligns with his. His spiritual experiences are internal only and he's probably assuming people interpret reality like he does with the exception of those who reject his process.

Trying to talk science with an esotericist is kind of interesting because it really underscores the gulf that exists between a brain that literally can't comprehend rationalism on any useful level to a brain that, at the least, is just wired differently and interprets information with a variety of different processes.

- Doc

[Guest]

I mean, how do you talk exoteric reality with a person who wholly subscribes, probably unknowingly, to hidden esotericism?

Zerinus is kind of in the NL camp when it comes to believing he has a deep understanding of universal truths. However, they're wholly known only to him and can only be understood by accepting his assertions as a default truth position. And by understood I mean you just think your esotericism probably aligns with his. His spiritual experiences are internal only and he's probably assuming people interpret reality like he does with the exception of those who reject his process.

Trying to talk science with an esotericist is kind of interesting because it really underscores the gulf that exists between a brain that literally can't comprehend rationalism on any useful level to a brain that, at the least, is just wired differently and interprets information with a variety of different processes.

- Doc

Agree pretty much 100%.

The OP was written specifically for MG and JLHPROF in response to their arguments on an earlier thread that faith is a reliable means of determining truth. Such arguments are complete nonsense, and yet otherwise rational and seemingly educated folks like JLHPROF still take exception and argue their positions based on unfounded belief.

NL and Z are clearly outliers in more ways than one. However, while I consider MG as a bit passive aggressive and sorely afflicted by faith, he seems to be still rational in the main. JLHPROF appears to be an individual who simply toes the company lines and would consider the public expression of any independent thought to be a sin.

Given the way the thread has gone so far, with the Choice 1 position being argued mainly by Z, JLHPROF may well decide not to participate. I see little difference between his position and that reflected in Z's posts so far. That being said JLHPROF would almost certainly express and defend the position in a more elegant manner.

We shall see.

[Guest]

The way I see it is if there is a creator/God, He is going to communicate with us in any way He can.

If god exists, why doesn't s/he just open her/his trap and talk to each of us? Isn't that among the any ways s/he can?

1. Would you listen and obey?
2. How would you feel about being 'spoon fed'?
3. How do you feel about 'helicopter parents'?

Back to number one...

How would you respond to God...in personal conversation...if He was telling you stuff that you didn't agree with? For example, let's say he directly told you to obey a certain and defined law of chastity/morality. Or a certain way of taking care of your body...no drinking, smoking cigars, no coffee/tea. Or that you needed to make promises to Him or you weren't going to be able come home with Him at a later date. Or that you needed to take a day off each week and go to church and serve in callings...etc. Or if He told you to donate at least 10% of your income to doing stuff like building temples, etc.

If He told you directly ...face to face...to do these things, and others, would you be cool with that? If not, where would you and God go from there?

Would you remain 'best buds'?

I think your concerns revolve mainly around, "Why doesn't God clearly/directly identify Himself to me?"

Right?

Regards,
MG