About testimonials

[Eric_Hyom]

Maybe you are unaware of the BASIC tenet of Christianity (Trinity!).

Agreed

Islam and Christianity are NOT the same.

Agreed; and whilst Islam and Christianity have different beliefs, they both worship God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Anecdotes are dime a dozen. There were many, properly designed, double blind tests, and the result was: nothing!

Whilst clever people think up these double blind tests, you can’t double blind God. Why should God take part in an experiment?

I believe God answers prayers in a way that help us towards eternal salvation.

 

[Abrosz]

Whilst clever people think up these double blind tests, you can’t double blind God. Why should God take part in an experiment?

Well, that is a possibility. So you believe that God is a cheater and a liar, who is willing to muddle the waters to help him hide “above the clouds”? How about the assertion that God cannot lie?

I am not a believer, but I would never be as disrespectful toward God, as you are. (Not that it matters, but some believers assert that God intentionally placed the bones of dinosaurs into the inappropriate strata, just to mislead us into the biblical timelines.)

I believe God answers prayers in a way that help us towards eternal salvation.

And your evidence for this is? . . .

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So you believe that God is a cheater and a liar , who is willing to muddle the waters to help him hide “above the clouds”?

Your words not mine.

Anyone who has an opinion about God could be called a theologian. And it has been said that a theologian reveals more of their own nature and character than they do about God.

I feel the heat rising, so this will be my last post.

 

[Abrosz]

Your words not mine.

I merely translated your words into a clearer format.

I feel the heat rising, so this will be my last post.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[fhansen]

For His reasons and purposes God 'hides" most of the time, until we look for Him, until we express real faith IOW. And then He reveals Himself, sometimes profoundly and unquestionably, apparently knowing that we should have enough knowledge, enough of a witness inside ourselves-combined with reason which looks outside, at our world, and calls for an explanation for its existence- to refrain from those things that oppose Him, which are lack of faith, hope, and love. It’s generally pride that separates us from God at the end of the day. And we have no need to convince others in order to convince ourselves.

 

[Peaceable]

When they are asked, just what kind of evidence can they provide, it always comes down to “testimonials”

Much of our ordinary knowledge about things in general, not just religious things, rely on testimony. And it’s reasonable that we believe in things based on testimony. Very few things in fact that we think we “know,” are things that we have rigorously scientifically tested ourselves or experienced through our own senses.

Case in point: most of us believe the sun is going to rise and set tomorrow. However we have no direct sensory proof this will be the case. Extreme skeptics would question whether we know this (or anything at all).

Having said that, if your standard of proof is that people have to have direct sensory experience to know that they’re true, mystical experiences of the divine are just that, and have been ongoing throughout history, not just in a single point in time.

Saints who had a mystical experience, for example, might be understood as having some degree of sensory or possibly supersensory experience of the divine. (I would defer to Catholics on how they would define this exactly, my point is only that its not testimony per se that mystics are relying on— This is why the experience is defined as mystical).

If you are concerned that sensory or super sensory experiences are fallible, note that most of our sensory experiences would be at risk for being fallible too.

Possibly controversial or offensive to some, sorry if this is the case, but I do think that it is striking that mystical experiences across multiple religious traditions bear some striking similarities. To me this seems to reinforce the validity in believing in God.

 

[Abrosz]

Much of our ordinary knowledge about things in general, not just religious things, rely on testimony.

Not all testimonies are “created” equal.

And it’s reasonable that we believe in things based on testimony.

Some things for sure. But no amount of testimonies would make the “landing of Little Green Men in a flying saucer” acceptable. However just ONE physical evidence would. The old saying of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is still the best of our guiding principle in accepting / rejecting claims… any claims, not just a “mystical” ones.

Moreover, the testimonials of some unknown people at unknown places and unknown times are extremely suspicious.

 

[White_Tree]

@Abrosz, it’s not entirely clear to me what your aim is here. Are you genuinely searching for spiritual light, or are you convinced there is none to be found, and merely desire other people to join you in spiritual darkness?

If it’s the former, and you genuinely are grasping in the dark, and need help, this may be your problem–the sentiment you expressed here, and elsewhere, is indicative of a particular mode of approaching reality that is inhibiting you from perceiving or understanding the light of the spirit:

But the most important point is that EVERYTHING is physical based!

I am going to give you this quote to reflect on. Read it deeply:

In the name of truth we must state that in synthesis we have three minds.

The first one we can and must call the Sensual Mind. The second we shall christen with the name of Intermediate Mind. The third we shall call the Inner Mind.

Now we are going to study each of these three minds separately and judiciously.

Unquestionably, the Sensual Mind develops its basic concepts via external sensory perceptions.

Under these conditions, the Sensual Mind is terribly crude and materialistic. It cannot accept anything which has not been physically demonstrated.

Since the fundamental concepts of the Sensual Mind are based on external sensory data, undoubtedly, it can know nothing about what is real, about the truth, about the mysteries of life and death, about the Soul and the Spirit, etc.

…

The Intermediate Mind is different. It has no direct knowledge of what is real either; it confines itself to belief and that is all.

Found in the Intermediate Mind are religious beliefs, unbreakable dogmas, etc.

The Inner Mind is fundamental for the direct experience of the truth.

…

To open the Inner Mind would be the appropriate thing to do in order to remove ourselves from the world of doubt and ignorance.

This means that only by opening the Inner Mind will genuine faith be born within the human being.

Viewing this question from another angle, we would say that materialist skepticism is a characteristic peculiar to ignorance. There is no doubt that learned ignoramuses are 100 percent skeptical.

Faith is the direct perception of what is real, it is fundamental wisdom; it is the experience of that which is beyond the body, the affections and the mind.

We must distinguish between faith and belief. Beliefs are found stored in the Intermediate Mind. Faith is a characteristic of the Inner Mind.

…

Obviously, the elimination of undesirable elements carried in our psyches commences the opening of the Inner Mind.

All this means that the aforementioned opening takes place gradually as we annihilate those undesirable elements which we carry within our psyches.

Whosoever has eliminated those undesirable elements 100 percent from within, will also have obviously opened up the Inner Mind 100 percent.

Such a person will possess absolute faith.

– Samael Aun Weor, The Great Rebellion

So if you want faith in the Light, open your inner mind!

 

[Peaceable]

testimonies are “created” equal

Since you mentioned it, explain what defines valid and invalid testimony.

“But no amount of testimonies would make the “landing of Little Green Men in a flying saucer” acceptable. However just ONE physical evidence would. The old saying of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” is still the best of our guiding principle in accepting / rejecting claims… any claims, not just a “mystical” ones.”
————-///—-
By physical, I assume you also mean sensory and broadly experiential. This is how we understand physical phenomena. See my prior comments on this. Mystical experiences are often sensory /experiential phenomena.

I would also note that there are some experiences that you may only have the position to understand by Testimony and not direct experience. Rare and unlikely scientific phenomena that you’re not in a position to investigate yourself, for example. You can choose not to believe these situations via testimony. These may include rare and unusual phenomena as well. But you presumably believe in these things.

the testimonials of some unknown people at unknown places and unknown times are extremely suspicious.

Mystics and apostles have names!
Also refer to the previous point that this would make it impossible to believe in historical events that happened long ago.

Many scientific discoveries are conducted by unknown people in fairly secretive ways. Yet you seem to believe those discoveries.

Re: The extraordinary evidence claim. Much of the extraordinary evidence we have is from testimony and not our direct experience. Moreover, mystical experience might be considered extraordinary evidence. It may be considered particularly extraordinary when you see similar phenomenon across multiple cultures and across time, as reported by Named Mystics across multiple cultural traditions. (Or in the same religion, as in Catholicism across different countries/millennia)

 

[Abrosz]

@Abrosz, it’s not entirely clear to me what your aim is here. Are you genuinely searching for spiritual light, or are you convinced there is none to be found, and merely desire other people to join you in spiritual darkness?

I have no agenda, except to learn from other people, whose worldview is different. One cannot ever learn from talking into a (virtual) mirror.

So if you want faith in the Light, open your inner mind!

I don’t WANT anything, but I am willing to learn everything.

 

[Abrosz]

Since you mentioned it, explain what defines valid and invalid testimony.

I don’t use the words: “valid” and “invalid”.

Acceptable testimony is one which can independently verified - at least in theory.

Questionable testimony is one which has only one support - what the snake-oil peddlers use: “Trust Me”.

 

[Peaceable]

OK. So most religious traditions assert that if you engage in certain activities as defined by that tradition, you will achieve a closer relationship with God. This can be verified by others as well as your own experience.

Snake oil says “trust me” but gives no pathway to testing whether the snake oil works or not. Worse the reason why snake oil is not trustworthy is if you use it it tends to fail.

So it seems to me by your own definition that religious practices are acceptable.

 

[Abrosz]

OK. So most religious traditions assert that if you engage in certain activities as defined by that tradition, you will achieve a closer relationship with God. This can be verified by others as well as your own experience.

Please… HOW can it be verified? That is something I would love to know!

So it seems to me by your own definition that religious practices are acceptable.

Let me have the details. HOW can one verify independently (objectively) if the practices can be verified? Are religious people happier? Healthier? Richer? Can we know if the Christians actually get into heaven? I would love to have a guided tour in heaven and hell (and maybe in purgatory) so I can make an INFORMED decision about how I should conduct my life, here and now? Because what we do, here and now is supposed to decide our “eternal” fate.

 

[Peaceable]

Please… HOW can it be verified? That is something I would love to know!

The verification of whether or not you will enjoy swimming is by actually swimming and observing your response.

The verification of whether or not you would improve your religious life and achieving a closer relationship with God is by actually practicing sincerely and seeing how things go.

Some things cannot be verified without you actually participating in it. The approach of sitting at the edge of the pool saying I’m not going to try the swimming unless I have proof that I actually enjoy swimming, is circular. How do you know you will enjoy it unless you’ve tried it?

 

[Peaceable]

Let me have the details. HOW can one verify independently (objectively) if the practices can be verified? Are religious people happier? Healthier? Richer?

I tend to go to the experts when I want the answer to a question. If I wanted an answer to this question, I would read the lives of the Saints. These are people who had closer relationships with God, and are sincere practitioners of the faith. Their writings speak for themselves and let you know what the value is of religious practice as they see it. Others on this site may have other explanations about the value of religious life.

People engage in religious practices for different reasons.

Also, if you’re asking whether a religious practice is valuable to you, you’re asking a subjective question. It’s like you’re looking for an objective justification to whether swimming may be enjoyable or good for you. What you’re actually looking for is a good reason to consider swimming. The fact that other people enjoy it and benefit is typically reason enough for someone to consider it and to determine if it’s right for them.

The fact that many people, including many, many Saints have had positive religious experiences, make it reasonable to consider that religious practice maybe a useful and positive thing in your life. However the only way to determine that is to actually engage in the practice, not by “ Sitting at the edge of the pool“ expecting the justification or answer to just come to you.

 

[MPat]

Not everything that is physical is acceptable as “evidence”.

If something else is the important feature, then it is your job to say what it is, given that, apparently, you demand it.

And to do so precisely.

For you write:

As soon as it would happen, it would be excellent, physical evidence for the claims.

Since you put a comma before “physical”, it looks like “excellent” is used as a synonym of “physical”.

And, of course, “excellent” is not a very useful description…

I do agree on Testimonials…every Mormon has one. It’s a trust issue here. They trust the testimonials of the gospels. They don’t necessarily trust anyone else’s. Testimonials are only as valuable as the person giving them. Christians trust the gospels. Just because we don’t doesn’t negate their trust in them. You can give them all the statistics you want on the reliability of eyewitnesses and it doesn’t matter. They do trust the gospel witness.

Well, it is true that no one is likely to change one’s mind, but that is not the only important thing.

It is also important which options are rational. Is it rational to trust the apostles, the Church, God?

He claimed that trusting them is irrational, supporting that by his own testimony that testimony is “extremely unreliable”.

That is obviously self-undermining and therefore irrational.

The one area that would swing me back to a believer again is a personal experience of the divine. Many have had this affirming experience, I never have. It’s something I can’t deny they have had, all I can say is it’s something I haven’t! If I did have it and told you about it, I wouldn’t expect you to believe it just as I don’t believe the experiences of others.

And here we see that you think that, at the very least, it would be reasonable to trust the Church (etc.) after receiving “a personal experience of the divine”.

That leads to two main questions:

1. Do you think it is reasonable to trust the Church (etc.) without such an experience?
2. Do you think there is a way to get any closer to a decision (for example, to make such an experience more likely)?

 

[Pattylt]

That leads to two main questions:

1. Do you think it is reasonable to trust the Church (etc.) without such an experience?
2. Do you think there is a way to get any closer to a decision (for example, to make such an experience more likely)?

1. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by trust the Church. As things stand right now, because I don’t think God exists, neither do I think the Church has the Truth about God. So basically, no. I don’t trust the Church to be the definitive arbitrator of God. If I had an experience of God that has me believing He exists again, I’d would have to go back into research mode again to see if the Church matches my experience. Without that experience, I have no idea if the CC matches mine.
2. Not any more. I spent years trying. I exhausted myself in trying. I gave up. It’s now up to God. I can’t go through that again…it’s was horrible. I’m in a much better place now.

I hope I answered the questions you were asking. If I missed a point let me know but I assure you, I’m honest with my answers.

 

[CelticWarlord]

the “testimonial” we are supposed to take seriously.

Personally I HATE testimonials. At the Salvation Army church our youngest son and his wife attend they devote, once a month, as much time as necessary at the end of service to testimonials. I’ve been present for these and it can add as much as 40 extra minutes to the affair. I am most thankful that there is nothing like this at Mass.

As to the main point of your post, which is well thought out and succinctly delivered, I can see what you mean quite easily. My own faith is based on my own experiences and, as much as I enjoy and benefit from reading the accounts in the bible, they are extensions of that personal experience, not the foundation, and would be relevant to few people other than myself. The fact that I have wound up immersing myself in Catholicism after 63 years of this is a fitting end, or at least a fine rest stop along the way.

 

[MPat]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by trust the Church.

I wrote “Church (etc.)” so that I would not have to repeat “apostles, authors of various books of Bible, mystics etc.”.

As things stand right now, because I don’t think God exists, neither do I think the Church has the Truth about God. So basically, no. I don’t trust the Church to be the definitive arbitrator of God.

So, next, can you demonstrate that this is a reasonable approach?

(Hopefully, that will also indicate if you think you are suspending judgement on this matter.)

Not any more. I spent years trying. I exhausted myself in trying. I gave up. It’s now up to God. I can’t go through that again…it’s was horrible. I’m in a much better place now.

“Horrible”…?

In what way?

 

[Pattylt]

So, next, can you demonstrate that this is a reasonable approach?

It’s reasonable to me. When I lost my faith and spent years trying to get any semblance of faith back again, I researched Christianity and specifically, the Bible. I don’t believe it to be what the church declares it to be…specifically the oral traditions of the authors writings. I agree with the scholarship that shows that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied the majority of Mark with additions from a Q source. The names of the gospels were added later in order to give authority to “The writings of the apostles” which it was originally known as. I think there are holes in the apostolic succession of the popes. I think much of the stories were written in order to fulfill the prophesies of the OT as interpreted by the church in its formative years. I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. As the church teaches contrary to this, I do not trust the church and what it believes.

Horrible”…?

In what way?

Over four years of desperately trying to find faith again. Praying and discussions and tears and thinking I was the only person that had ever lost my faith before…this is all pre internet. I had no idea there was even a word for it. It was awful and soul crushing and doubting my sanity. Eventually, I came out accepting that I just don’t believe in the supernatural. It seems I can’t. I don’t know if it’s just something in my brain or what…I didn’t know other people like me even existed but when I finally decided it was up to God, I could do no more, I finally felt at peace.

To this day, I still don’t understand how or why I lost faith. I loved God. I was happy in my religion. I sure wasn’t seeking to lose it or to sin or because I was mad at God…none of that applied. It was mostly His silence. Later, other issues came in but that was the start. Once I researched secular studies on the Bible, I was really done. You can’t unlearn that stuff and it made much more sense to me than the Christian history.

I’m still fascinated with believers and their beliefs. I’m still clueless why I lost belief. I do enjoy learning about all religions but I believe none of them.