[Hhhhh]

I decided to start this thread for several reasons. One is because I promised Silent_B0b an argument in how praying and interaction with God relates to the scientific method. Also, I have noticed that most of our discussions on the role of faith and evidence of existence of God deal directly with the subject of theory of justification. And third, although I am a former engineering major and currently a CS major, I have come to question what we understand as the scientific method, its role in the search of truth and the blind trust that scientists and laymen put on it.

To start up, I would like to recomend everyone to read this excellent article in Wikipedia about Epistemology. It isn't too long and it is an very interesting read, and I think that it would add much to the discussion if we could read it first.

First off, the definition:

Quote

Epistemology, from the Greek words  episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge.

I want to put this in the perspective of our previous discussions. I specifically want to argue the point that there are several epistemological theories that deal with justification (supporting reasons for a belief) which allow room for kinds of experiences (answers to prayers, pure reasoning, etc) that might not fit in the scientific method paradigm, and still be considered legitimate.

Here are a few definitions. According to the article, in the realm of all statements, a subset of those are known as the truth. This is absolute and independent of human opinions. Another subset of those statements are beliefs, which is what we believe it is the truth. The intersection of these two subsets of statements is knowledge, meaning the things that we believe to be true and are indeed true. Plato argued that a belief needs a reason for the individual to believe it is true, and thus we have justified beliefs.

A big part of epistemology (known as theory of justification) deals with this latter concept, attempting to judge the validity of different justifications for beliefs. Here is where we talk about whether sensorial experience, pure deductive thinking, feelings in our mind, supernatural occurences, etc. are reasonable justification for our beliefs and acceptable in the search of knowledge. Certainty in this area would give us the tools to prove our beliefs and reach truth (including but not limited to God's existence).

Theory of justification recognizes two different approaches to validate belief as knowledge: irrationalism and rationalism. Irrationalistic approaches would deny the need for logic in the search for truth. For example, believing that something is true because we want it to be true, or using random methods (like plucking petals from a flower in a "she loves me/she loves me not" fashion). For example, back in my country I decided that a certain soccer team was the best and became a fan. Did I have a reason to believe it is the best? Yes. What was that reason? Because I wanted to.

Another irrationalistic approach is known as mysticism.

Quote

Mysticism is the use of non-rational methods to arrive at beliefs and accepting such beliefs as knowledge. For example, believing that something is true based on emotion would be regarded as epistemological mysticism, whereas believing based on deductive logic or scientific experiment would not. An instance of this may be when one bases one's belief in the existence of something merely on one's desire that it should exist. Another example might be the use of a daisy's petals and the phrase "he loves me/ he loves me not" while they are plucked to determine whether Romeo returns Juliet's affections. The mysticism in this example would be the assumption that such a method has predictive or indicative powers without rational evidence of such. In both of these examples, belief is not justified through a rational means. Mysticism need not be an intentional process: one may engage in mysticism without being aware of it.

Here comes the first debate point of this thread: does the answer to a prayer through specific feelings and mental impressions fall under the category of mysticism, and thus it is irrational proof?

My position is that it does not. I believe those feelings to not be psychosomatic self-stimulation, but rather put there by God. I tried the experiment of praying and "listening" to feelings in many (MANY) occasions, at different times, at different hours during the day, at different seasons of the year, under different stress conditions, different places, alone, with others, etc. with more or less the same results (maybe varying in degrees of intensity, but the same feelings nonetheless). They were the same feelings described in the Scriptures as being the influence of the Holy Ghost. That is what I meant by replicability in a previous post a while ago.

Before answering that feelings are not a valid method, notice that at this point we aren't discussing the validity of them as a justification (that will come later, just keep on reading), but rather whether the systematicality of this evidence implies the use of reason in its use. In other words, at this point we are discussing whether the use of such an experience (regardless of whether those feelings are actually put there by God or if it is all psychosomatic) as evidence follows logic. I just told you my experience with prayer, and told you how systematic everything was. Is it logical for me to assume that they could be evidence of the existence of God(although you might not agree that they are actual valid evidence)?

There are several epistemological theories that attempt to explain how beliefs should and should not be justified, and I will describe them and how the "pray for confirmation" experience fits and how well does it pass the test on each one of them. As of right now, it is 4:45AM here in Provo and I'm falling asleep on the keyboard. Please read the Wikipedia article, consider the debate point (and post your opinions) and stay tuned for the conclusion of my essay. I will comment on the several epistemological theories described in the article, talk about the flaws in empiricism and the scientific method, and give my reasons to believe why the feelings after praying are a valid justification for a belief.

[Mr. The Cube]

I'm very interested to read what you have to say on the subject.

Hhhhh said:

Here comes the first debate point of this thread: does the answer to a prayer through specific feelings and mental impressions fall under the category of mysticism, and thus it is irrational proof?

Urg... after struggling with this for a while, I have to ask how you define "rational". I don't think a thought or a feeling is inherently rational or irrational, but it takes on such modifiers in the context of a statement.

Hhhhh said:

Is it logical for me to assume that they could be evidence of the existence of God(although you might not agree that they are actual valid evidence)?

This depends upon your foundational beliefs. In this case, you are assuming that the scriptures (specifically, those describing feelings derived from prayer as being sent by God) are true. In light of that, since you have felt those feelings, you can logically conclude that God exists. An outside observer with the same foundational beliefs, assuming he accepted your feelings as valid proof (regardless of whether they are rational or irrational), could also logically conclude that God exists. In all other cases, however, one cannot logically conclude that God exists.

[Hhhhh]

Mr. The Cube said:

Urg... after struggling with this for a while, I have to ask how you define "rational". I don't think a thought or a feeling is inherently rational or irrational, but it takes on such modifiers in the context of a statement.

OK, good question. Rational should be defined as something that makes use of logic.

The thing I would like to focus on at this point is in the use of logic for the argument of the existence of God. Let's suppose that God does not exist, and that I actually those feelings were put there by some other random event. Is it logical for me to say that I am following reason when I believe they are evidence? I, as an individual, experience something every single time I pray as I described. Do I have a strong logical reason to believe that it is a psychosomatic event? I don't, but rather I believe to be sticking to logic more closely by assuming that they are evidence. Makes sense?

What I am trying to point out is that rationality isn't necessarily related to validity. The schizofrenic who believe he sees things that do not exist is using logic. In his experience, he believe those things to be true, and logically acts on those premises. Rationality must be judged in the frame of reference of the experiences, not on absolutes. Believing that God exists because I really, really, really want it to be true or just to follow a tradition is irrational, believing in God due to some other kind of manifestation (regardless of its authenticity) is perfectly logic.

To illustrate this idea, let me give a mathematical example, which I am sure you are familiar with. The statement I believe to be true is that "all numbers in the Fibonacci series are positive". OK, let's prove it. Let's say that I want to prove it by using the following formula:

F(0) = 1, F(1) = 1, F(n) = F(n - 2) - F(n - 1)

So, I start:

F(0) = 1
F(1) = 1
F(2) = F(1) - F(0) = 1 - 1 = 0
F(3) = F(2) - F(1) = 0 - 1 = -1 !!!!

And I then conclude the belief is false.

What was the problem? Was there a problem with my arithmetic? I don't think so, I believe I substracted right, I did use logic. The problem was in my method: I did not apply the right formula for Fibonacci. I should have used:

F(0) = 1, F(1) = 1, F(n) = F(n - 2) + F(n - 1)

While my method to prove it was wrong, I used logic perfectly with no errors in my working of the problem. No arithmetic mistakes.

It is in the same plane that rationality comes in to justification. Our perceptions, premises, axioms or methods to validate a statement can be flawed, but our reasoning still can be perfectly logical and correct. That is what I meant.

That doesn't mean that any experience, premise or method is good as proof of a belief (obviously the formula I tried at first was wrong).

Quote

This depends upon your foundational beliefs. In this case, you are assuming that the scriptures (specifically, those describing feelings derived from prayer as being sent by God) are true. In light of that, since you have felt those feelings, you can logically conclude that God exists. An outside observer with the same foundational beliefs, assuming he accepted your feelings as valid proof (regardless of whether they are rational or irrational), could also logically conclude that God exists. In all other cases, however, one cannot logically conclude that God exists.

Very true. This brings me to my next point, which is foundationalism. That will be the topic for the second part of my essay.

[Casey]

Quote

I, as an individual, experience something every single time I pray as I described. Do I have a strong logical reason to believe that it is a psychosomatic event?

http://en.wikipedia....pirical_methods

Well here is the conflict with your empirical evidence. The empirical method “is part of the scientific method”.

They scientific method:
Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)
Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
Experiment (test of all of the above)

Lets start with your hypothesis – God exists
Prediction – If you pray you will receive an answer
Experiment – Prayer verifies hypothesis

The problem – Your missing a few things before you may conclude that the Holy Ghost can be empirically proven.
Characterization:
”The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry. Scientific measurements taken are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, performed on them.”

If religion is being claimed as science, it is a pseudo-science like alchemy because it cannot be quantified.

Another part of the problem with categorizing the Holy Ghost as empirical is that your hypothesis ignores peer review of the data. We call the Holy Ghost a psychosomatic reaction because that’s what we observe. What we have is a conflict of opinions of an observation. The obvious course of action is to experiment and quantify this feeling. However the individuals involved tend to taint the methods of experimentation, also quantifying a feeling seems a little bit difficult.

My previous experience with the Holy Ghost tells me that it was a psychosomatic reaction because I was able to recreate those feelings without prayer and they feeling died after a while with prayer.

[Hhhhh]

You missed my point. I am not trying to make religion pass as science, I am not saying that praying for comfirmation of truth by the Holy Ghost follows the scientific method, I am criticizing the scientific method at its core.

I am doing this because all this appeal to quantification and measurement is actually faith. Yes, faith on science based on an appeal to authority to scientists. Or do you guys try every single experiment that shows up in Slashdot in order to convince yourselves?

Anyways, I am going to talk about several different theories on how to acquire truth, and empiricism (the one that is in fad today) is only one of them. I am trying to shake the foundation of empiricism a little to show that it is not the only approach, it is ONE approach, and it has failed horribly in the past. Prayer, Holy Ghost, well, those fall into a different foundationalist theory, and it really doesn't make much sense to judge other theories from the point of view of one of them.

Anyways, I'll try to get to the second part of my essay as soon as I can.

[Casey]

Quote

I am not saying that praying for confirmation of truth by the Holy Ghost follows the scientific method, I am criticizing the scientific method at its core.

Well the scientific method may not be perfect; science can be tainted by opinion. However the difference between the scientific method vs. any other means of interpreting reality is the scientific method yields more results.

Quote

do you guys try every single experiment that shows up in Slashdot in order to convince yourselves?

No, science isn’t a religion. However you have to have faith in scientists to believe it. However I receive evidence that what they theorize is true by the inventions created and diseases cured. In contrast I see the results of religion… it doesn’t look good. Religion has caused wars, racism, slavery, murders, and genocide. The dark ages are great historic evidence of the results of religion.

Also the scientific method is based of a series of logical conclusions. Religion doesn’t fallow logic.

[RoundelMike]

Hhhhh said:

...I have come to question what we understand as the scientific method, its role in the search of truth and the blind trust that scientists and laymen put on it.

There's a bit of blind trust in religion as well, don't you think? Definitely even more so than in science which you are so vehemently villifying. That's already a big red flag for me.

Hhhhh said:

I believe those feelings to not be psychosomatic self-stimulation, but rather put there by God. I tried the experiment of praying and "listening" to feelings in many (MANY) occasions, at different times, at different hours during the day, at different seasons of the year, under different stress conditions, different places, alone, with others, etc. with more or less the same results (maybe varying in degrees of intensity, but the same feelings nonetheless). They were the same feelings described in the Scriptures as being the influence of the Holy Ghost...Before answering that feelings are not a valid method, notice that at this point we aren't discussing the validity of them as a justification...

We can make ourselves "feel" anything we want. Repeatedly. I understand that you're trying hard to say that, at very least, the consistency of your feelings must be worth something. That because your feelings gel with Moroni's challenge there is a real argument for validity there. And there is--to you.

But not to me. You are not going to be able to prove that your viewpoint is as justifyable as science, no matter how many big words you use. Religion is based on feelings. Moroni's challenge is rooted in feelings. Mormons have testimony meetings to stir up and strengthen feelings. The entire Mormon missionary program is dedicated to getting people to feel certain feelings. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's what religion is all about: fervently believing in your heart, because of your feelings, that there is a God and that he has a message for the world. Trying to prove the validity of your religion using scientific measurements isn't going to happen, and frankly, it does nothing but detract from the power of a believer's testimony. It says that you need something additional to prove that you're justified. I say that religious faith speaks for itself and needs no justification. Otherwise, what good is faith? Why praise it so highly if it needs reinforcement?

I haven't read anything in the Bible or The Book of Mormon about epistemoligicallyanicallyolgy or whatever it is. Scripture, which according to most religionists, contains the entire truth about god and is literally his word, doesn't try to prove or justify faith and religion intellectually, but demands faith first and promises feelings of confirmation afterword. If god doesn't need to justify faith, why should anyone?

[Darkglow]

In the words of someone much more astonished than I, "Oh, my God."

You say, "Otherwise, what good is faith?" And I answer, "Hell if I know." Why praise it so highly, indeed?

If the Bible had actually addressed anything as sensible as epistomology, it might have earned a little more respect as a source of wisdom. If only we mere mortals could operate using God's backwards logic, life would be sweet. I could demand faith from my bank for a $1,000,000 loan, promising to prove I can become a millionaire and pay it back without any evidence that I'm capable. But next time I'm in there, I'm gonna hit 'em with, "If god doesn't need to justify faith, why should anyone?" And like RoundelMike, I won't even capitalize His name, just to show my respect level for Him.

It would certainly be in my best interest to encourage people that I was worthy of their worship based on a promise that it'd be worth it later. How could they question me? Who could be my competition? Only heretics coming in here and asking for adolation for such mundane things as actual, demonstrable accomplishments.

Well, leave it to me to put the "demon" in "demonstrable." It's time for me to watch a little porn and play with my willy, because every time I do, I feel exactly the same way...though it does vary in intensity. It's a little epiphany every time.

[Mr. The Cube]

My internet danger-sense is tingling. Let me remind everyone of the general futility of arguing over the internet.
Debate is fine, but if you withhold your indignation, you might gain some insight into other people's thought processes.

[RoundelMike]

Mr. The Cube said:

My internet danger-sense is tingling.

That didn't take long. :wink:

Look, if anyone gets offended by what I say, then they're taking all of this way too seriously. As for debating, why talk ourselves in circles for three thread pages, picking apart each little line of the previous person's post, and giving our little retort? I say that we should lay it all out on the table, and say what we mean to say--in English--and be done with it.

None of us are scientists or professional clergy here, most are just undergrads and/or common members of a local congregation, and we're having a conversation based on our limited knowledge. And if we were face to face, I would definitely offer to buy Hhhhh a beer (or a more holy equivalent).

[Mr. The Cube]

RoundelMike said:

Look, if anyone gets offended by what I say, then they're taking all of this way too seriously.

I wasn't aiming that at anyone in particular, I just didn't want Hhhhh's thread to become unraveled. I'm probably overreacting though, it's just that discussions like these on the many other forums I frequent tend to break down rather quickly. Anyway, just politely ignore me. :wink:

[Hhhhh]

Casey said:

Well the scientific method may not be perfect; science can be tainted by opinion. However the difference between the scientific method vs. any other means of interpreting reality is the scientific method yields more results.

Depends by what you mean by results.

Quote

No, science isn’t a religion. However you have to have faith in scientists to believe it. However I receive evidence that what they theorize is true by the inventions created and diseases cured. In contrast I see the results of religion… it doesn’t look good. Religion has caused wars, racism, slavery, murders, and genocide. The dark ages are great historic evidence of the results of religion.

Hmm, that isn't really what most religions push. We could also say stuff about the Cold War, the competition for technology and WMD. Anyways, it is true, there have been many gross aberrations done in the name of religion.

Quote

Also the scientific method is based of a series of logical conclusions. Religion doesn’t fallow logic.

Hmm, this is precisely the argument I was making and the first point of debate in this thread.

Inherited religion (being a religious because of tradition) or being religious because we really, really, really want to have a God would be irrational. But I believe that in my own search for truth in religion I have used all the principles of logic.

Before we go into more detail in this idea, tell me: a schizofrenic that sees things in his imagination and acts accordingly (sees monsters and tries to hide), is he being rational?

[pjbrownie]

Quote

Here comes the first debate point of this thread: does the answer to a prayer through specific feelings and mental impressions fall under the category of mysticism, and thus it is irrational proof?

My position is that it does not. I believe those feelings to not be psychosomatic self-stimulation, but rather put there by God. I tried the experiment of praying and "listening" to feelings in many (MANY) occasions, at different times, at different hours during the day, at different seasons of the year, under different stress conditions, different places, alone, with others, etc. with more or less the same results (maybe varying in degrees of intensity, but the same feelings nonetheless). They were the same feelings described in the Scriptures as being the influence of the Holy Ghost. That is what I meant by replicability in a previous post a while ago.

I think you out to explicate the term "feelings" a bit. I believe that the epistemology of feelings should be broken down. There are emotional feelings, such as joy, anger, pain, despair, loss, grief that are causal reactions to mental realizations and experiences. Often they are irrational because they are realized on thought impressions that are often innaccurate. Because we "believe" something, despite the truthfulness of belief, it will create "irrational" emotional responses. However, emotions can be of a rational origin, such as a person who fight off an attacker. It is completely rational to defend one's own existence by harnessing or using the hormonal/emotional impulses in out bodies as tools, even if we only think about it subconsciously. I think emotional reaction are often most characterized as irrational because they are nominally expressed in the concourse of conversations, and since we know most human communication is an expression of predictions, impressions, intuitions, and used crude tools such as language (which most find difficult to rationalize in normal uses). Nevertheless, the scriptures do explain this epistemology in Galations 5:22-23

Quote

22 But the fruit• of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Now is not the "fruit" a list of feelings? Yes and no. They are also actions, characterizations of being, as well as actual behavioral modifications. This is different than the meditative and simply mystical aspects we have been defining as "answers to a prayer" as if we only either experience them if we are in this sort of meditative state, either desiring to believe in the truth of something, and receiving the psychosomatic response. There's something more permanent about truth being expressed epistemologically than just feeling. They are motivational, charactorial, and behavioral. There is also a semblance of permanence. Emotional feelings are however, characterized by their tendency to be fleeting. In fact, their very floatational ascpect makes them ultimately unreliable. But in concordance with permanent "positive" behavioral change, something more solid can be determined at least from an ethical standpoint. We could go on arguing the "how" of these experiences, but if this is the actuality of the Spirit, it would be foolish for one not to empirically test its merits, if only for the existential pusposes it entails.

Notice also, that there is a law that must be followed in order to receive of this fruit. This means that certain behavioral elements, commandments, what have you, are the cause of the fruit of the Spirit, while the effects are feelings, more behavioral change elements, and a more positive temperment, showing that there is more to experiencing the Spirit than just prayer.

However, there are other more subtle feelings that I believe aren't characterized as "emotion." They feel outside oneself, as if an unseen power is acting upon you, almost like "feeling" the wind blowing upon your face. It's subtle, its a feeling, but definitely not your feeling. I believe another characteristic of a sound epistemology based on feelings should recognize this fact. Emotional reactions to these spiritual imprints may also be evident, but they aren't the focus of the feeling, or ought not to be. I believe that if this extra-corporal feeling should be intellegent, it should react to personal expressions in seeking for it (prayer) as well as spontaneous imprints in normal everyday life, grow in strengh and import, as well as eventually manifest itself in ways that are termed visions, healings, miracles, prophecy, raising from the dead, events that bring to part the ultimate knowledge of the truth of that spirtual imprint. Mormons understand this in terms of Alma 32: 26-43

Quote

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

Discussions about why Mormons or Christians don't discuss epistemology and therefore should be rejected, are in error. They do, but they do so in much plainer language (thankfully). Alma here in the Book of Mormon has just explained the epistemology of feelings, why they are initially important, but eventually, can't be totally trusted (psychosomatic argument). There is an element of a desire to believe, and acting upon the belief (behavioral) that are requisit to obtaining this experience.

Quote

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

Quote

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing(the goodness of it), and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good•, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

Of course its good, even if from a psychosomatic experience, it has existential motivations that are ethically just and good. This can be proved by how your own actions, behaviors, and feelings are effected by the experiment. Lives change for the better. This we can be sure is good. Notice, however, that we still don't have a perfect knowledge. Yes, we know the experiment has made us feel better about ourselves, has made out life better, but it is not the end. The reaping of the reward (the perfect knowledge, evidence, etc.) is still to come, with work, not just thought or meditative mystical experiments.

Quote

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

Notice how there comes a reckoning. I DO NOT believe that this MUST come after you die. In fact, I believe that it can take place in this life, bypassing the ultimate conundrum of having to wait for your reward until after you die, passing the evidentiary buck so to speak. The fruit must be an external suject acting upon you to nourish you, it has physical evidence (taste), is tangeable, and has the ability to transform you into the kind of creature I believe is a more complete transformation than subtle changes in behavioral temperance we discusses earlier with the epistemology of feeling. This is more complete, more permanent, more lasting, evidenced by a life that is now changed so much that it uses the language of an "everlasting life," not in terms that it will actually make you immortal, though that has definitely been postulated by the doctrine of "translation" or at least having your "election" to everlating life made sure by some tangeable experience (seeing God, etc.)

In conclusion there is so much to experiencing religious truth than just feelings or emotion. They are:

1. Brought about by following behavioral laws
2. Initiated by a desire to believe

And the result in

3. Positive, lasting emotions that aren't transitory
4. Charactized by a positive change in behavior and character (the existential experience made real and useable)
5. Eventually point to an evidentiary experience (outside oneself) that is undeniable, tangeable, and all-encompassing
6. Eventually accompanied by miracles, healings, raisings from the dead, prophecy, and other gifts that are unexplainable from the human experience and are outside oneself
7. Comply with the laws of nature and reason as we either understand them know or will understand them in the future

It is so much more than a "burning in the bosom" or a "good feeling" and it takes more than for someone to empircally try understanding spirtual truth via a few thought experiments, and then declaring either that they don't exist or that they are arbitrary because they are only psychosomatic.

I believe most who dismiss spirtual truth as psychosomatic either have a problem with spiritual truths #3 or #2, and I would challenge them in the name of adventure to make a good college try at #3 and #2 if only for its existential benefits, and then let's discuss their benefits.

[Hhhhh]

Very well said, pjbrownie. Thanks.

[Casey]

pjbrownie, you have stumbled across a little paradox. Much like the one in Moroni this scripture requires belief before you are given an answer. Think about what you are asking of us with your challenge. You are initially asking that we ignore our current beliefs and assumptions about the universe. Then change them to fit the Mormon belief just to find an answer.
Let’s say that I have a desire to know the truth, but I don’t want to be Mormon. Are the conditions in your challenge met? Lets also say that I don’t believe "in Christ". Can I still receive an answer? And third lets say that I think that spiritual experiences are psychosomatic so I will approach them with huge amounts of skepticism. Will your challenge work then?
As an atheist I make this statement "you can convince me to join a religion if they are able to show me how it works logically (including the logic of the existence of god) and/or physical evidence. How can you be convinced?

[Hhhhh]

Casey said:

pjbrownie, you have stumbled across a little paradox. Much like the one in Moroni this scripture requires belief before you are given an answer. Think about what you are asking of us with your challenge. You are initially asking that we ignore our current beliefs and assumptions about the universe. Then change them to fit the Mormon belief just to find an answer.

Exactly. Most grand theories were discovered only when people were willing to step out from their paradigm. That is how heliocentrism, Newtonian physics, Darwinism, humanism and general and special relativism came about.

Quote

Let’s say that I have a desire to know the truth, but I don’t want to be Mormon. Are the conditions in your challenge met? Lets also say that I don’t believe "in Christ". Can I still receive an answer? And third lets say that I think that spiritual experiences are psychosomatic so I will approach them with huge amounts of skepticism. Will your challenge work then?

No. The description of the challenge is specific, and when conditions aren't met, then there are no results. Coincidentally, exactly the same happens with scientific findings. If read of an experiment, and I want to replicate it but don't follow the directions described by previous experiences, and my experiment fails, does that substract from the credibility of those claims?

Quote

As an atheist I make this statement "you can convince me to join a religion if they are able to show me how it works logically (including the logic of the existence of god) and/or physical evidence. How can you be convinced?

That simply doesn't work. Things simply don't work outside of the frame of reference where they developed. I cannot expect you to prove to me that evolution is true and creationism is wrong in religious grounds, can you? Maybe you can support those claims by using a scientific paradigm. Same thing in the other direction. At this point, don't expect proof of creationism on scientific grounds because that theory was not developed in scientific territory but rather in the metaphysical realm. Attempts to mix oranges and apples defy logic.

[Casey]

Alright, the problem all starts with your initial assumption. You assume god exists, now if god exists he/she wants something from us. That usually would require telling us in some manner, communicate with us. You believe this communication with god comes through another similarly higher being called the Holy Ghost (or spirit) and he/she/it communicates with an emotional response.

Now we start with my assumptions. I assume that god doesn’t exist and that reality is presented to us through our senses.

You postulate that if I pray I will receive a feeling of the Holy Ghost, however it does require me to ignore my initial assumption. I state that your assumptions is improvable therefore improbable. If someone is able to prove the initial assumption to be correct or at least likely, then I could move onto the second assumption.

However on the reverse what does it take to convince a religious person that god doesn’t exist. The burden of proof is on the person who makes that claim. As an atheist I do not claim that god doesn’t exist, but there is no proof of him/her. Why believe in something that doesn’t have any proof?

You then ask me to believe in him/her to receive the proof. If I believe in god to begin with then you wouldn’t be challenging me. Do you see the problem?

[Admiral]

Actually as an atheist you do claim that god does not exist. If you are only arguing that there is no evidence for him, than you are an agnostic.

How can one determine whether assuming God exists or assuming he does not exist is the more reasaonable approach? I'll admit that the religious person does begin with that assumption, but I see no justification for one particular assumption over the other.

Why does the burden of proof rest upon the religious person, btw?

[Mr. The Cube]

Admiral said:

Actually as an atheist you do claim that god does not exist.  If you are only arguing that there is no evidence for him, than you are an agnostic.

Actually, no. Atheism encompasses both camps. What you describe as agnostic is called "weak atheism", and actively denying the existence of God is "strong atheism". Atheism in general is marked by a lack of belief in gods, for whatever reason. Agnosticism is succintly describe by Wikipedia as:

Quote

...the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life.

[pjbrownie]

Quote

You are initially asking that we ignore our current beliefs and assumptions about the universe. Then change them to fit the Mormon belief just to find an answer.

Actually, I was giving an example. My explanation of the Mormon epistemology doesn't preclude other faiths from developing their own epistemology to accessing spiritual truth. I have found that the LDS faith focuses more on how to access truth, which I believe is one of its selling points.

Quote

Let’s say that I have a desire to know the truth, but I don’t want to be Mormon. Are the conditions in your challenge met? Lets also say that I don’t believe "in Christ". Can I still receive an answer?

An answer from Alma's perecpetive? No. You can't. You have to have a desire to believe. If that's a problem and you have no desire to even want to have a DESIRE to believe, you won't find the truth from THAT perspective. I can't logically dismiss other methods just because the Mormon perspective is true, because I can't prove a negative, just like an athiest can't prove God doesn't exist, you can only say that you don't have evidence to prove that he does.

Quote

And third lets say that I think that spiritual experiences are psychosomatic so I will approach them with huge amounts of skepticism. Will your challenge work then?

I think this is your problem. You're afraid of being duped by yourself. I don't find a problem with that, because the emotional and behavioral changes that are promised in Galations are existentially ethical to the human soul, regardless of whether they are eventually vindicated by an outside tangeable experience.

In other words, I'd rather tap into my cranial "God Spot" if this is actually what my experiences are, then go about life being a cynic, but that's my choice. I have found that the benefits of believing far outweigh the benefits of not believing.

If the cost of believing is too great for you to actually experience the positive effects of it on your life, that's for you to decide. For some people, knowing that must never be duped, that they must critique and distrust everything unless they see physical evidence is a powerful thing. I understand this, but I also feel that I would prefer to have the benefits of true religion than be confident in my own box of carefully managed evidenced truths.

The biggest reason to believe that's very logical in my mind is the unknown of death. Is it more logical to prepare for possible next life or not, if you don't know what's around the corner?

Quote

You then ask me to believe in him/her to receive the proof. If I believe in god to begin with then you wouldn’t be challenging me. Do you see the problem?

This is the scientific method. You believe a hypothesis, then you about trying to prove it. There is nothing different in this religious test that what a physics major would do in proving the gravitational pull between two masses. If one didn't believe in the theory, why would one invest the time necessary to prove the hypothesis?

Proof does come, but not after the work is done. Again, the only difference between the believer and the non-believer is the present decision to pursue that truth, and how important it is to that person. If its not important to you, than you won't put in the work to find the proof. I think that eventually, the importance of it catches up to everyone because we all die and have to experience the unknown. I just choose to pursue these matters before my deathbed.