Are subjective religious experiences enough to prove the facts about faith?

[dennisknapp]

Greetings,

I just finished a discussion with a member of the LDS church regarding whether or not Mormonism were true. It finally boiled down to what he called a “testemony of the Holy Spirit.” Well, let me just post what he said.

The LDS position is that the truth of Mormonism can only be determined, ultimately, by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You seem to insist that that experience must necessarily be what you call “subjective”. That depends on your definition of “subjective”. If God has revealed to me that something is true, by a personal revelation to me, then that revelation remains a personal experience for me. I cannot convey or transmit that experience to another person. If that is what you mean by “subjective,” then you are right, it is subjective. If, however, by “subjective” you mean it is something that is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy (which is what you apparently do mean by it), then I disagree. I can have an encounter with God that can be as real to me as anything can be to you. Just because it is an experience that I cannot ready convey to you, it does not prove that it must be any less real or trustworthy (to me).

You can save yourself and anyone else the effort of trying to define what is “objective and provable”. If you are expecting me or anyone else to “prove” to you that Mormonism is true, I can save you a lot of trouble from the start by telling you up front that that is not possible. If anyone has told you anything different, then they don’t know what they are talking about**. Furthermore, I would go further and inform you that you cannot “prove” the truth of any religion, not just of Mormonism.** More fundamentally, you cannot even “prove” the existence of God. If you cannot prove the existence of God, how can you prove the truth of any religion, which is based in the first instance on belief in the existence of a God?
amgid

I have highlighted the parts that stuck out to me. First, when I think of subjective I think: truth = known to you and only you. When someone claims a religious experience that experience goes no further than that person. Truths by definition is objective and therefore needs something more than subjective experience.

He goes on to say that we cannot prove the truth of any religion, or even God’s existence. Well, the latter may be true, but the former? Is it possible to prove a religion true? I would say, yes. Religion is not just made up of beliefs, it is also made up of facts, historical facts to be more percise. Whether or not these historical facts exist or not prove a religion is true or not. If Christ never existed Christainity is false, no matter how many people say they have experienced the presence of Jesus. Christianity stands or falls based on the historical existence of a man named Jesus who existed 2000 years ago (and lives today).

The same can be said of Mormonism. If the Great Apostasy happened as an historical event Mormonism is true, if not, false.

What do you think?

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

That it all comes down to your source. What if someone was able to convince another that Jesus never actually lived? What if the information or methods for proving such were wrong and he did in fact live? What if someone sees God and he tells the person that such-and-such is true, even though the opinion of the scholastic (or religious) community is so strongly against such a thing? That has happened all throughout history, and that does seem to be a historical fact.

Usually, religious experience doesn’t include visual face-to-face encounters with God (except with those that have already developed their faith to such a degree), which is where the problem is. Most often, revelation comes in other forms that seem to be more subjective, although they do relate truth.

What do you mean when you say that truth is objective by nature?

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

What do you mean when you say that truth is objective by nature?

I meant that truth is like the laws nature or reality itself. When we speak of something being true it either is or is not. Aristotle once said of truth, “calling what is that it is and what is not that it is not.” The goal is searching for truth is one of seek “what is.” Therefore, truth is objective in that it is the “is.”

Peace

 

[edmondhall]

Proving a religion true, in an empirical sense, would block out any use or purpose for faith since faith would be unnecessary. But it is certainly possible to find reasons, empirical, logical, and subjective (perhaps?) to convince one of the truth of a religion.

As Pope John Paul II said:
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth

I think it is possible to prove that a religion is false. If a person claims to be a true prophet and makes false prophecies, then… If a person claims to be speaking for God and is lying or preaching things that contradict the natural law, then…

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Gotcha, Dennis.

Proving a religion true, in an empirical sense, would block out any use or purpose for faith since faith would be unnecessary. But it is certainly possible to find reasons, empirical, logical, and subjective (perhaps?) to convince one of the truth of a religion.

True.

I think it is possible to prove that a religion is false. If a person claims to be a true prophet and makes false prophecies, then…

True. But only in the most obvious circumstances.

If a person claims to be speaking for God and is lying or preaching things that contradict the natural law, then…

What do you mean by the natural law?

Wow, I never thought I’d agree with you two about anything, especially consecutively and without any major objection. That’s one small step for man; one … other small step for Catholics and Mormons.

 

[edmondhall]

By natural law I only meant to refer to those moral distinctions that humans can innately make…e.g., incest is wrong, lying for personal gain is wrong and so forth.

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dennisknapp:

Greetings,

I just finished a discussion with a member of the LDS church regarding whether or not Mormonism were true. It finally boiled down to what he called a “testemony of the Holy Spirit.” Well, let me just post what he said.

I have highlighted the parts that stuck out to me. First, when I think of subjective I think: truth = known to you and only you. When someone claims a religious experience that experience goes no further than that person. Truths by definition is objective and therefore needs something more than subjective experience.

He goes on to say that we cannot prove the truth of any religion, or even God’s existence. Well, the latter may be true, but the former? Is it possible to prove a religion true? I would say, yes. Religion is not just made up of beliefs, it is also made up of facts, historical facts to be more percise. Whether or not these historical facts exist or not prove a religion is true or not. If Christ never existed Christainity is false, no matter how many people say they have experienced the presence of Jesus. Christianity stands or falls based on the historical existence of a man named Jesus who existed 2000 years ago (and lives today).

The same can be said of Mormonism. If the Great Apostasy happened as an historical event Mormonism is true, if not, false.

What do you think?

Peace

That no experience given to one individual, can be communucated to any other by its recipient; and is therefore useless as proof of an encounter with God, real or otherwise - excellent as it may be for the recipient; but it is worthless as proof of anything.​

A God Who could be proved to exist, would not be worth believing in; the very idea is disgusting.

The historical existence of Jesus, is worthless as proof of what Christians claim about Him - He didn’t think St. Peter had relied on any proof or argument or evidence to know Who He was: the secret of Jesus’ identity was revealed to Peter by the Father - not arrived at by reason. Reason is utterly worthless, & utterly useless, as a means of showing Who Jesus is; faith in Christ is in the strictest sense a revelation - and not the work of the human intellect, like merely human philosophies. St. Paul is clear on this: the Gospel relies not on human eloquence, but on the power of the Cross. ##

 

[dennisknapp]

## That no experience given to one individual, can be communucated to any other by its recipient; and is therefore useless as proof of an encounter with God, real or otherwise - excellent as it may be for the recipient; but it is worthless as proof of anything.

A God Who could be proved to exist, would not be worth believing in; the very idea is disgusting.

The historical existence of Jesus, is worthless as proof of what Christians claim about Him - He didn’t think St. Peter had relied on any proof or argument or evidence to know Who He was: the secret of Jesus’ identity was revealed to Peter by the Father - not arrived at by reason. Reason is utterly worthless, & utterly useless, as a means of showing Who Jesus is; faith in Christ is in the strictest sense a revelation - and not the work of the human intellect, like merely human philosophies. St. Paul is clear on this: the Gospel relies not on human eloquence, but on the power of the Cross. ##

Historical proof Jesus existed is foundational in that it shows we do not believe in fiction. I agree that through revelation we recieve the full picture of Jesus, but history is also another source.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

Gotcha, Dennis.

Wow, I never thought I’d agree with you two about anything, especially consecutively and without any major objection. That’s one small step for man; one … other small step for Catholics and Mormons.

Can you elaborate on what we agree on? Are you saying you believe in objective truth? If so, what tools do you use to reach objective truth? From what I have gathered you are ultimately limited to subjective religious feel. This feeling over rides all other evidence and proof. Is this so?

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

I posted this on another thread, but felt it better fit the theme of this thread.

My thought is in regards to Mormon epistemology.

It is interesting the position the LDS take on the issue regarding tests for truth and knowledge.

They have made it so that they can never be wrong. How do they do this you might ask? Well…

1. Everything, and I mean everything, is based on a subject religious experience. This experience can’t be proved or disproved because we don’t have access to people’s minds or hearts.
2. Because it is entirely based on a subjective experience, all those who do not have this experience are wrong. Only those who have the experience are right.
3. So, using this “method” of discerning truth the LDS will always be right, for they have had an experience informing them so.
4. Therefore, for them to be wrong is for them to have misunderstood what they experienced or they experienced nothing at all but wanted what they believe to be true, so thought they experienced something, when in fact they experienced nothing.

My problem with this… It can prove anything. A Buddhist can use it, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, anyone. It gets to the point where the experience becomes meaningless because everyone is claiming to have had an experience, yet they are at the same time attempting to prove contradictory things.

This “method” goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing except to psychologically reinforce already held beliefs. It boils down to wishful thinking.

Peace

 

[AquinasXVI]

Dennis:

The direct answer is no. But only in the subjective experience do we encounter God. Through all of our senses we “take in” all that is happening to us including thoughts about God. This is where the genius of John Paul II comes in. He cleaned up a philosophical system called phenomenology and used its elements to legitimize the subjective experience. As Catholics we defend and rightly so the objective truth expressed through realistic philosophy. But the other side of the coin is our personal interaction with the objective truths.

But this can only be legitimately done by us believers of objective truth through the incarnation. Christ is the anchor of all subjective experience for he, the ultimate being became subjective man.

This is where the Theology of the Body launches from. So somewhere in the dangerous pools of subjectivism, there is a diamond of truth in that rough. Which if we think about it makes sense. All of our experiences is part of human history and if so part of universal history in which the laws of God are permeating…therefore our individual experiences should amount to something.

Gosh, I don’t think I helped one bit. Well, take time to study the Theology of the Body…it’s all there.

in XT.