philosophy and religion

[BDawg]

We’ll see how this goes, but as to the first argument, it seems simple to me. God is infinite, and all the Persons in the trinity are therefore infinite. I simply have to trust that God is benevolent (this is where the faith must come in, I must reflect on His works and trust that He will fulfill His promises) and since any character He holds is to the fullest degree, He is infinitely benevolent, it is a part of His nature. Since we are limited, finite beings, any piece of character we hold isn’t going to be perfected and infinite (except by God perfecting us, and He won’t force that on us, we must choose to come to Him), it’s going to be finite, a work in progress. So we can act with goodness sometimes, but evil other times. So you see, if we finite creatures are to have free will, there must be the possibility of evil in the world since any goodness we have is far from infinite perfection.

Hi nebula,

So, it seems to me that you are saying that:

1. “infinite beings” can be by nature perfectly good and perfectly free, but
2. “finite beings” can’t,
3. so it wasn’t “logically possible” to create us so we were perfectly good and truly free.

At least, that’s an argument that I think would make sense against mine, and seems like a reasonable approximation of where you were going.

Except…you throw in the idea that “finite beings” can’t have any perfect attributes “except by God perfecting us, and He won’t force that on us, we must choose to come to Him.”

Huh? So God can perfect us? It IS logically impossible for a finite being to have some perfect attributes? And why would making us perfect be “forcing” anything on us any more than creating us with sinful natures would be “forcing” something on us? So if God is going to create me out of absolute nothingness, in any “logically possible” way he damn well pleases, I vote for him “forcing” me to be perfectly good.

I don’t think the problem is a trivial issue to sweep under the rug. It is a profound and difficult issue to wrestle with. Part of it, I believe, is expressed in Christ’s suffering on the cross, but now I am venturing in my amateurish theologizing. What I do argue though is that the problem of evil isn’t a sufficient issue to turn around and toss out all of the accomplishments that are gained through thoughtful reflection on the created order. “There is evil, therefore God doesn’t exist, screw what seemed so reasonable with the argument from contingency, and even the argument from design, and the grand question of grounding Being in the ontological argument. I can’t figure out evil, therefore the rest of it is bunk”- that is going too far. It is appropriate to take the problem seriously under the framework already built.

I’m not really arguing that you shouldn’t reflect on the created order. I’m saying that you didn’t reflect ENOUGH on the created order.

All of those arguments may have quite a bit of merit, but it is not a question of them being absolutely true or absolutely bunk. When you run across a really glaring inconsistency between your theory and the data it’s supposed to explain, you change the theory, or look more closely at the data. That’s the dialogue I’ve been talking about. But I don’t see it. People used various arguments to come up with a definition of God, but those arguments are far from foolproof. And yet, this definition of God is THE axiom employed for a large chunk of the theologizing that has gone on, even though it runs head on into the glaringly obvious fact of evil in the world.

I don’t get what the anti-Greek bias is about. I don’t mean you specifically here, but why many people have such a distaste for it to the extent that labeling something as “influenced by the Greeks” automatically implies invalidity. I’m beginning to think that a lot of this is really a matter of aesthetics, that some persons (whether this is true of you only you can tell) find the idea of an infinite immutable God distasteful because He seems well, so static and sterile. But is that really the case? I think of the gorgeous music, architecture, art, ritual, the ecstatic mystical experiences all ultimately inspired by this ‘sterile’ God. I agree that we aren’t giving the whole case here, online, focusing on the philosophical side of things, but God isn’t only the God of the philosophers, He’s the God of the lived religion too, and that is an important end to keep in mind lest the soul revolt against the conception of the uncaring, static, Platonic keeper of Forms and count what philosophy can clarify for us as nothing. He is the God who longs for His children, who literally suffers and dies for them, who calls for them continually, who rejoices for them and loves them with the love of a perfect mother. This too is part of the understanding and goes hand in hand with what contemplation of nature reveals to us. Nature reveals to us order, reveals to us the reality of existence, reveals to us the contingency of all things- and it also reveals to us great beauty and joy as well.

The bias comes partially from the fact that:

1. This is clearly not the same God that is described in the Bible. It really seems forced to assume that kind of God and then try to jam the Old and New Testaments into that mold.
2. This God is not supposed to have any “passions,” and is not supposed to be capable of reacting to any specific stimulus. God just IS. And yet, people pray to God as if he could react to such stimuli.
3. Therefore, there seems to be a disconnect between the God that is lived, and the God that is theologized.

I say the same thing about strict Calvinists. They say they don’t believe anything we do can affect our salvation, but they don’t act like that’s the case. The God they live and the God they theologize are two different things.

As for mysticism, you might find “Prophets and Mystics” by Hugh Nibley to be interesting.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

So, it seems to me that you are saying that:

1. “infinite beings” can be by nature perfectly good and perfectly free, but
2. “finite beings” can’t,
3. so it wasn’t “logically possible” to create us so we were perfectly good and truly free.

At least, that’s an argument that I think would make sense against mine, and seems like a reasonable approximation of where you were going.

Except…you throw in the idea that “finite beings” can’t have any perfect attributes “except by God perfecting us, and He won’t force that on us, we must choose to come to Him.”

Huh? So God can perfect us? It IS logically impossible for a finite being to have some perfect attributes? And why would making us perfect be “forcing” anything on us any more than creating us with sinful natures would be “forcing” something on us? So if God is going to create me out of absolute nothingness, in any “logically possible” way he damn well pleases, I vote for him “forcing” me to be perfectly good.

I’m not really arguing that you shouldn’t reflect on the created order. I’m saying that you didn’t reflect ENOUGH on the created order.

All of those arguments may have quite a bit of merit, but it is not a question of them being absolutely true or absolutely bunk. When you run across a really glaring inconsistency between your theory and the data it’s supposed to explain, you change the theory, or look more closely at the data. That’s the dialogue I’ve been talking about. But I don’t see it. People used various arguments to come up with a definition of God, but those arguments are far from foolproof. And yet, this definition of God is THE axiom employed for a large chunk of the theologizing that has gone on, even though it runs head on into the glaringly obvious fact of evil in the world.

The bias comes partially from the fact that:

1. This is clearly not the same God that is described in the Bible. It really seems forced to assume that kind of God and then try to jam the Old and New Testaments into that mold.
2. This God is not supposed to have any “passions,” and is not supposed to be capable of reacting to any specific stimulus. God just IS. And yet, people pray to God as if he could react to such stimuli.
3. Therefore, there seems to be a disconnect between the God that is lived, and the God that is theologized.

I say the same thing about strict Calvinists. They say they don’t believe anything we do can affect our salvation, but they don’t act like that’s the case. The God they live and the God they theologize are two different things.

As for mysticism, you might find “Prophets and Mystics” by Hugh Nibley to be interesting.

To be perfectly good would mean full communion with God, but that destroys the purpose of us freely entering a relationship with Him, and that was the point. I’m surprised you’re so keen on Lucifer’s plan of salvation . The problem of evil is just that, a problem. It’s not a disproof of the proofs we’re been discussing.

As far as the God of the OT-- Which one?? I agree, I didn’t derive my idea of God from the OT first, He revealed HImself to me and I reflected on my experiences, nature, myself. There are several models of God in the OT which are offered up, if we are supposed to rely on the OT as the sole source of information about what God ‘looks like’ we’re going to end up going in circles. It’s not consistent. That’s why Biblical interpretation and how that ought to relate to our conception of reality as it is is tricky business. For every scholar who claims x about the OT, there is one who claims y, and another who claims z. We can draw theological truth from it, but not in an exacting way.

I don’t think God is without feeling, otherwise, how could He be love? Why would He sacrifice Himself out of His love for us? I think you are assuming that I am accepting the Platonic notion of God in all its infamy. I’m not, at all. Just because I’m using a philosophical approach to find out a few basic facts about God doesn’t mean that is where we ought to stop and it doesn’t mean that I am advocating for nothing more than the ‘God of the philosophers’. If that were so, I’d be a deist, and I’m not, God is personally interested in us creations. I don’t know how to make it any plainer than that: we can get a general idea of God’s nature through general revelation, the Bible itself reveals that much. From that picture we can see how the Bible itself appears to be a good fit with what we’ve discovered about God’s basic nature, and interpreting that reveals much more that we ought to know. Attempting to rely solely on the Bible leads nowhere, fast.

 

[nebula]

Please demonstrate what is behind the curtain, and how we could know about it.

What scientists are seeking, if you are correct, and what they will find is another thing. What you suggest is that one day, everything will be known scientifically and we will all sit on our laurels and do no more science because we have finally found things as they truly are and there will be nothing else to learn.

I think you don’t really think that is possible do you?

mf, nope, that’s not what I’m s uggesting, because uncovering reality as it really is completely is impossible. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. That also doesn’t mean that scientists aren’t trying to do that very thing (ie through the Theory of Everything).

Anyway, getting to what is actually behind the curtain is the task. You may think I’m hopelessly old fashioned for lusting after a foundational view of knowledge, but there it is. Changing the rules of the game, changing the definition of truth in the middle of the game doesn’t change what the goal is meant to be: truth as in, knowing what reality is actually like. Redefining to be what seems to ‘work’ (whatever that means, exactly) doesn’t make it, well, true. That’s what I want from you, an argument as to why defining truth as ‘that which works’ leads to actual truth. Why is it a valid methodology?

 

[BDawg]

Hi nebula,

To be perfectly good would mean full communion with God, but that destroys the purpose of us freely entering a relationship with Him, and that was the point. I’m surprised you’re so keen on Lucifer’s plan of salvation . The problem of evil is just that, a problem. It’s not a disproof of the proofs we’re been discussing.

Me and Lucifer–we’re tight.

Ok, so God creates “finite beings” out of nothing, and can do so in any logically possible way, but it’s “better” if these finite beings freely ENTER a relationship with God? (This makes some sense, although I guess you have to take it on complete faith that this is “better” than all other “logically possible” alternatives.) But why not just ask them? Why not just present the facts and let them decide for themselves? Instead, God puts them in a situation where it isn’t obvious that there is a God, and even if “general revelation” is supposed to lead us to reason in that direction. And let’s face it–most people are too damned ignorant and stupid to even follow that kind of reasoning. Why the subterfuge?

The Mormon answer is that this life is designed to bring out the kind of people we really are. That’s why we have to learn to live by faith–because God purposely has NOT made the “general revelation” too convincing.

But from a classical Christian point of view, displaying the way people really are can’t have much purpose, I don’t think, because God made them out of nothing, in any way he wanted.

So I can see a purpose for allowing evil in the world. I can see a purpose for God’s “invisibility.” But I just can’t follow the reasoning when a classical Christian God is behind it all.

As far as the God of the OT-- Which one?? I agree, I didn’t derive my idea of God from the OT first, He revealed HImself to me and I reflected on my experiences, nature, myself. There are several models of God in the OT which are offered up, if we are supposed to rely on the OT as the sole source of information about what God ‘looks like’ we’re going to end up going in circles. It’s not consistent. That’s why Biblical interpretation and how that ought to relate to our conception of reality as it is is tricky business. For every scholar who claims x about the OT, there is one who claims y, and another who claims z. We can draw theological truth from it, but not in an exacting way.

I think maybe you’re somewhat right about this. But on the other hand, there are always opposing tendencies to either “harmonize” apparently conflicting information, or just give up and say it’s conflicting. Many times, the problem is just the pre-existing framework of ideas that you are trying to fit everything into. The pieces don’t fit together in that framework. While I’m ok with the OT prophets having some different ideas about God, I think the idea of a transcendent, anthropomorphic, perfectly just and good God who creates other beings (but not from nothing) and tries to draw them to be like Him, really helps make sense of all the little pieces.

I don’t think God is without feeling, otherwise, how could He be love? Why would He sacrifice Himself out of His love for us? I think you are assuming that I am accepting the Platonic notion of God in all its infamy. I’m not, at all. Just because I’m using a philosophical approach to find out a few basic facts about God doesn’t mean that is where we ought to stop and it doesn’t mean that I am advocating for nothing more than the ‘God of the philosophers’. If that were so, I’d be a deist, and I’m not, God is personally interested in us creations. I don’t know how to make it any plainer than that: we can get a general idea of God’s nature through general revelation, the Bible itself reveals that much. From that picture we can see how the Bible itself appears to be a good fit with what we’ve discovered about God’s basic nature, and interpreting that reveals much more that we ought to know. Attempting to rely solely on the Bible leads nowhere, fast.

Ok. I thought your idea of God was the same, essentially, as in classical Christian thought, but there must be some differences. When I read the Early Christian Fathers, I constantly find them talking about questions like, “Did God suffer on the Cross, since God by nature is impassible and without passions?” And they ended up answering, “No, really Jesus had both a complete human nature and the fullness of the Divine Nature, and it was his human nature that did the suffering.”

Hey, I have to cut out of here for a few weeks, because the semester is starting. I’ll let you have the last word, and you and m can go on, but I’ll check what’s posted for the next few days to see what you say. You can probably get ahold of me through my profile.

Anyway, it’s been a blast talking to you, and I appreciate how fair-minded you have always been. It’s refreshing, after experiencing the rest of this forum.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

Me and Lucifer–we’re tight.

Ok, so God creates “finite beings” out of nothing, and can do so in any logically possible way, but it’s “better” if these finite beings freely ENTER a relationship with God? (This makes some sense, although I guess you have to take it on complete faith that this is “better” than all other “logically possible” alternatives.) But why not just ask them? Why not just present the facts and let them decide for themselves? Instead, God puts them in a situation where it isn’t obvious that there is a God, and even if “general revelation” is supposed to lead us to reason in that direction. And let’s face it–most people are too damned ignorant and stupid to even follow that kind of reasoning. Why the subterfuge?

The Mormon answer is that this life is designed to bring out the kind of people we really are. That’s why we have to learn to live by faith–because God purposely has NOT made the “general revelation” too convincing.

But from a classical Christian point of view, displaying the way people really are can’t have much purpose, I don’t think, because God made them out of nothing, in any way he wanted.

So I can see a purpose for allowing evil in the world. I can see a purpose for God’s “invisibility.” But I just can’t follow the reasoning when a classical Christian God is behind it all.

I think maybe you’re somewhat right about this. But on the other hand, there are always opposing tendencies to either “harmonize” apparently conflicting information, or just give up and say it’s conflicting. Many times, the problem is just the pre-existing framework of ideas that you are trying to fit everything into. The pieces don’t fit together in that framework. While I’m ok with the OT prophets having some different ideas about God, I think the idea of a transcendent, anthropomorphic, perfectly just and good God who creates other beings (but not from nothing) and tries to draw them to be like Him, really helps make sense of all the little pieces.

Ok. I thought your idea of God was the same, essentially, as in classical Christian thought, but there must be some differences. When I read the Early Christian Fathers, I constantly find them talking about questions like, “Did God suffer on the Cross, since God by nature is impassible and without passions?” And they ended up answering, “No, really Jesus had both a complete human nature and the fullness of the Divine Nature, and it was his human nature that did the suffering.”

Hey, I have to cut out of here for a few weeks, because the semester is starting. I’ll let you have the last word, and you and m can go on, but I’ll check what’s posted for the next few days to see what you say. You can probably get ahold of me through my profile.

Anyway, it’s been a blast talking to you, and I appreciate how fair-minded you have always been. It’s refreshing, after experiencing the rest of this forum.

• I argue that God has made the best possible world in which beings are making free choices. If God imputed knowledge of Himself to us choice is taken away. Knowing for a certainty that Reality IS God pretty much nails the lid shut on free choice. I trust that God is good and loving and therefore created the best logically possible version of the world.
• Sure, but I think my view of God actually fits the chaos of the OT better than the Mormon version because it encompasses not only the more ‘limited’ views of God presented, but also the strict monotheism found in say, deutero Isaiah.
• As far as suffering and such goes, I don’t think God as perfect spirit suffers in quite the same way we do, but something is going on.

I’ve only been working on my theology for less than a year now, so I have lots to iron out. Thanks for being a part of that process. I hope we get a chance to chat again in the future.

 

[mfbukowski]

mf, nope, that’s not what I’m s uggesting, because uncovering reality as it really is completely is impossible. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. That also doesn’t mean that scientists aren’t trying to do that very thing (ie through the Theory of Everything).

Anyway, getting to what is actually behind the curtain is the task. You may think I’m hopelessly old fashioned for lusting after a foundational view of knowledge, but there it is. Changing the rules of the game, changing the definition of truth in the middle of the game doesn’t change what the goal is meant to be: truth as in, knowing what reality is actually like. Redefining to be what seems to ‘work’ (whatever that means, exactly) doesn’t make it, well, true. That’s what I want from you, an argument as to why defining truth as ‘that which works’ leads to actual truth. Why is it a valid methodology?

It seems like there is a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs here. In the first paragraph, you say “uncovering reality as it really is is impossible”, and in the second paragraph you say “getting to what is actually behind the curtain is the task”.

I am confused.

My point is that we cannot know anything except what is experienced either by us personally, or by the “culture” ie: other people’s truthfully related experiences. We can speculate to fill out the “dotted lines” on the theory, but speculation is not knowledge. Speculation is “faith”.

It is like on the old maps “Terra Incognita”. Not saying there’s no terra, just that it’s incognita. We are taking it on faith that there is something there, because big holes just don’t show up at random on earth. But I can’t tell you where the land is, if any, or how high the mountains are. It’s unknown. But in principle, you could go there and look for yourself.

It is like theorizing what existed before the big bang. Unknowable. How could anyone possibly know? Theories could abound and do.

So at what point do you say “All this is empty chatter. I think I’ll eat lunch?”

Seriously. At a certain point, the utility of metaphysics breaks down and it becomes a video game. Maybe fun, but it’s non productive. I tried going on a couple of the Thomist threads a while back, it it was just so WEIRD to me to think that there were still humans who were into that stuff. But I don’t mean any disrespect about that. It is part of their “theory” and their construction of culture, or in other words, their reality. And I tried to speak their language, but it has been so long and has become so foreign that it was difficult.

Nevertheless I would welcome an oppportunity to re-visit some of the epistemological details of the pragmatists. It’s been a while. I’ve gotten so used to thinking this way over the years, it might be good to re-examine those roots. A tweak here and there is a “good thing”, as that great thinker, Martha Stewart would say

 

[nebula]

It seems like there is a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs here. In the first paragraph, you say “uncovering reality as it really is is impossible”, and in the second paragraph you say “getting to what is actually behind the curtain is the task”.

I am confused.

My point is that we cannot know anything except what is experienced either by us personally, or by the “culture” ie: other people’s truthfully related experiences. We can speculate to fill out the “dotted lines” on the theory, but speculation is not knowledge. Speculation is “faith”.

It is like on the old maps “Terra Incognita”. Not saying there’s no terra, just that it’s incognita. We are taking it on faith that there is something there, because big holes just don’t show up at random on earth. But I can’t tell you where the land is, if any, or how high the mountains are. It’s unknown. But in principle, you could go there and look for yourself.

It is like theorizing what existed before the big bang. Unknowable. How could anyone possibly know? Theories could abound and do.

So at what point do you say “All this is empty chatter. I think I’ll eat lunch?”

Seriously. At a certain point, the utility of metaphysics breaks down and it becomes a video game. Maybe fun, but it’s non productive. I tried going on a couple of the Thomist threads a while back, it it was just so WEIRD to me to think that there were still humans who were into that stuff. But I don’t mean any disrespect about that. It is part of their “theory” and their construction of culture, or in other words, their reality. And I tried to speak their language, but it has been so long and has become so foreign that it was difficult.

Nevertheless I would welcome an oppportunity to re-visit some of the epistemological details of the pragmatists. It’s been a while. I’ve gotten so used to thinking this way over the years, it might be good to re-examine those roots. A tweak here and there is a “good thing”, as that great thinker, Martha Stewart would say

What I meant was, the ultimate task is to have knoweldge of what is behind the curtain, though it is impossible to actually have that knowledge of metaphysical reality. So, we’re left with beliefs about it as the best we can do in our strivings for true knowledge. That’s why I see the arguments for God’s existence as evidences, not proofs (proof implying something leading to certainty).

I think we can both agree though that just because we can’t have certain knowledge, that isn’t an excuse to go get lunch and watch TV. There are well founded beliefs and ill founded beliefs and as reasonable people we should strive to do the best we can to get the best beliefs possible in our lifespan and given our historical circumstances. I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[mfbukowski]

What I meant was, the ultimate task is to have knoweldge of what is behind the curtain, though it is impossible to actually have that knowledge of metaphysical reality. So, we’re left with beliefs about it as the best we can do in our strivings for true knowledge. That’s why I see the arguments for God’s existence as evidences, not proofs (proof implying something leading to certainty).

I think we can both agree though that just because we can’t have certain knowledge, that isn’t an excuse to go get lunch and watch TV. There are well founded beliefs and ill founded beliefs and as reasonable people we should strive to do the best we can to get the best beliefs possible in our lifespan and given our historical circumstances. I hope that clarifies my position.

Hmmmm yes and no. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but I am still having trouble with the statement:

“What I meant was, the ultimate task is to have knoweldge of what is behind the curtain, though it is impossible to actually have that knowledge of metaphysical reality.”

Still not quite sure what to do with that one.

Being as gentle as I can, maybe that position is one you need to examine, because it is not linguistically clear.

I can certainly take it poetically to mean something like “The ultimate task is to dream the impossible dream and strive for knowledge of the unknowable”.

Sort of an ethical position, that we “should” faithfully pursue faith?

But faith is not knowledge. Sorry. I’m just not getting it.

Try again? Or maybe take another look at what you are trying to get to? Why is this statement important to you? Where does this fit in your model? What do you want to do with it?

Maybe I am too hung up on this one line. I like the rest of what you said; certainly I like “So we’re left with beliefs about it as the best we can do in our strivings for true knowledge”

I think it takes some courage to finally get to that point.

We are so much after certainty especially in things that matter most: how can it be that in the things that matter most, there is no certainty? We want to tack it down and make it absolute. But this is an illusion. Faith is faith, and we are here to live by faith.

If we could prove prove prove God’s existence we would not (“could not” I don’t know?) make mistakes and our freedom, if existent in any real way, would be meaningless.

What would happen in a possible world where it could be proved that on the morning of April 6, 6000 BC the world was created, and all genetic evidence shows that we are all descended from one man and one woman who lived approximately at that time. All carbon or other dating technologies stop dead at that same date and every scientist on the planet agrees that the world was created ex nihilo at that moment. It is as certain as that the earth rotates around the sun…?

How could we walk by faith? Would there be athiests? How many people would be in prison?

I think that lack of certainty is essential to making the plan of salvation work.

 

[nebula]

Hmmmm yes and no. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but I am still having trouble with the statement:

“What I meant was, the ultimate task is to have knoweldge of what is behind the curtain, though it is impossible to actually have that knowledge of metaphysical reality.”

Still not quite sure what to do with that one.

Being as gentle as I can, maybe that position is one you need to examine, because it is not linguistically clear.

I can certainly take it poetically to mean something like “The ultimate task is to dream the impossible dream and strive for knowledge of the unknowable”.

Sort of an ethical position, that we “should” faithfully pursue faith?

But faith is not knowledge. Sorry. I’m just not getting it.

Try again? Or maybe take another look at what you are trying to get to? Why is this statement important to you? Where does this fit in your model? What do you want to do with it?

Maybe I am too hung up on this one line. I like the rest of what you said; certainly I like “So we’re left with beliefs about it as the best we can do in our strivings for true knowledge”

I think it takes some courage to finally get to that point.

We are so much after certainty especially in things that matter most: how can it be that in the things that matter most, there is no certainty? We want to tack it down and make it absolute. But this is an illusion. Faith is faith, and we are here to live by faith.

If we could prove prove prove God’s existence we would not (“could not” I don’t know?) make mistakes and our freedom, if existent in any real way, would be meaningless.

What would happen in a possible world where it could be proved that on the morning of April 6, 6000 BC the world was created, and all genetic evidence shows that we are all descended from one man and one woman who lived approximately at that time. All carbon or other dating technologies stop dead at that same date and every scientist on the planet agrees that the world was created ex nihilo at that moment. It is as certain as that the earth rotates around the sun…?

How could we walk by faith? Would there be athiests? How many people would be in prison?

I think that lack of certainty is essential to making the plan of salvation work.

What, it’s unclear besides the bad spelling?

This is what I mean: we all strive to discover the truth. That’s the point of scienitific endeavours, for example, or philosophical reflection. We want to get things right, we want them to correspond to how things really are. But, it’s impossible to really KNOW how things really are (that is, how things are behind the curtain of phenomena). What I am saying is that there is no foundational approach to knowledge anymore. Can this dream be rebuilt? I guess for me to say with certainty ‘no’ would be to claim knowledge that I can’t have so…

IN any case, the best we can hope for is to strive to get our beliefs about metaphysical reality (the really real, what the universe is ultimately like, however else you want to put this) as closely aligned as we can, given the fact that we do not have an epistemology that allows us to be certain in our truth claims. We have guides, such as coherence theory, pragmatism, correspondence theory and so forth, but without a foundational theory of knowledge in place, certainty, absolute certainty, is going to be beyond our grasp.

So, does that mean we all give up and go home? Not at all. We examine our epistemologiocal methods, we apply them the best we can, we examine and re-examine, and see what we get. We form beliefs as justified as we possibly can get them.

I hope *that * clarifies things.

Perhaps you are right that God has not given us the ability to have absolute certainty so as to have to learn to trust Him (true, meaningful faith).

 

[mfbukowski]

What, it’s unclear besides the bad spelling?

This is what I mean: we all strive to discover the truth. That’s the point of scienitific endeavours, for example, or philosophical reflection. We want to get things right, we want them to correspond to how things really are. But, it’s impossible to really KNOW how things really are (that is, how things are behind the curtain of phenomena). What I am saying is that there is no foundational approach to knowledge anymore. Can this dream be rebuilt? I guess for me to say with certainty ‘no’ would be to claim knowledge that I can’t have so…

IN any case, the best we can hope for is to strive to get our beliefs about metaphysical reality (the really real, what the universe is ultimately like, however else you want to put this) as closely aligned as we can, given the fact that we do not have an epistemology that allows us to be certain in our truth claims. We have guides, such as coherence theory, pragmatism, correspondence theory and so forth, but without a foundational theory of knowledge in place, certainty, absolute certainty, is going to be beyond our grasp.

So, does that mean we all give up and go home? Not at all. We examine our epistemologiocal methods, we apply them the best we can, we examine and re-examine, and see what we get. We form beliefs as justified as we possibly can get them.

I hope *that * clarifies things.

Perhaps you are right that God has not given us the ability to have absolute certainty so as to have to learn to trust Him (true, meaningful faith).

Sounds good to me. I was just having trouble with that first sentence that our ulitmate task was to do something impossible.

So shall we get onto the epistemology or do you want to go in another direction?

 

[nebula]

Sounds good to me. I was just having trouble with that first sentence that our ulitmate task was to do something impossible.

So shall we get onto the epistemology or do you want to go in another direction?

Hmm, we could go into the epistemology unless you had another idea in mind. That’s always a good place to start, now that we’ve talked about the goal.

So, why pragmatism? Is it valid? What does it mean for a statement to be true in pragmatic thought?

 

[mfbukowski]

Hmm, we could go into the epistemology unless you had another idea in mind. That’s always a good place to start, now that we’ve talked about the goal.

So, why pragmatism? Is it valid? What does it mean for a statement to be true in pragmatic thought?

I think a good place to start is with the cliff notes version as a jumping off point. Maybe you could take a look at this:

iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm#H1

and let me know if you see anything that seems glaringly weird. Actually, most of it may seem glaringly weird! But I really think that Dewey was pretty much on the money except for some of his social stuff.

The closest we can get to “truth” is “warranted assertibility”. I know this may be a jump for you, but ulitmately when you base everything on personal experience and what I have called “cultural experience” I think this is about as close as you can get it.

Dewey basically believes that our environment which as modern human, is basically culture, has been formed by human activity over umpteen years. Even when we try to observe objectively something totally natural, we cannot separate out our cultural biases. In turn, by doing activities like this, talking about things etc. we are defining and altering that cultural reality. Ideas “catch on” and then perceptions change. So when we take any experience we are automatically filtering it through all our cultural and personal “prejudices” at once.

We look at the moon, and see a face. We look at clouds and see castles. I see fractals everywhere because I am weird. I look at a cumulus cloud and I think about popcorn because they both form themselves according to similar fractal formulas. Now you may think of that the next time you look at a piece of popcorn if you have never done it before. A conversation can actually alter your pereceptions of reality.

“It’s clouds illusions I recall, I really don’t know clouds at all”

But there are nothing else

So the environment (culture) forms us, and we in turn form the culture. But this is not the old dualism in new words like us versus the culture, it really is a monism. We are inseparable from the culture and it is inseparable from us, in a state of continuous Hegelian modification. So “reality” is this ongoing stream of experience.

So this is also how spiritual experience fits in. Let’s look at “burning in the bosom”. (Luke 24:32) When you have several million people describing a similar experience today, and when you see this experience recorded 2000 years ago, this is an experience with as much “warranted assertibility” as you can get, to me.

It is part of our cultural heritage, and there are many who would describe similar phenomena. It satisfies all the criteria for “truth”
in pragmatism.

Do I “know” when I have had such an experience? As much as I can know I have had any experience. I know for a fact that my old karrman ghia is red. No disputing it. I have had the experience of seeing it with my own eyes. I know it as certainly as I can know anything. You have not seen it, but perhaps you believe me that it is true. Maybe you accept it on faith because I would not lie about it. So you have that “knowledge” as well to a lesser degree. It is like knowing that Nairobi Kenya exists. But if you doubted I could send you a picture, and you would have more certainty. But I still could by lying – it could be someone else’s karmann ghia which is red. But we could take steps to “prove” it was mine. At some point, you would be satisified that I really do own a red karrman ghia. You would have “warranted assertibility”.

You could say that the proposition “bukowski owns a red karmann ghia” is “true”. You could say that you “know” that bukowski owns a rkg.

But is it absolutely absolutely certain? What if the whole thing was a carefully crafted hoax?

That is always a possibility, but you would weigh the evidence. You can never know anything in the realm of “cultural experience” with the same certainty that you have with direct experience. I absolutely know I own a rkg, but you can never really totally know.

But what if a hundred different people with nothing to gain from it told you that I really did have a rkg?

I kind of have to take off here unexpectedly for a few hours, so I guess to be continued tomorrow.

So from this point, I guess this is a start if you feel like this is a fruitful direction.

 

[nebula]

I think a good place to start is with the cliff notes version as a jumping off point. Maybe you could take a look at this:

iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm#H1

and let me know if you see anything that seems glaringly weird. Actually, most of it may seem glaringly weird! But I really think that Dewey was pretty much on the money except for some of his social stuff.

The closest we can get to “truth” is “warranted assertibility”. I know this may be a jump for you, but ulitmately when you base everything on personal experience and what I have called “cultural experience” I think this is about as close as you can get it.

Dewey basically believes that our environment which as modern human, is basically culture, has been formed by human activity over umpteen years. Even when we try to observe objectively something totally natural, we cannot separate out our cultural biases. In turn, by doing activities like this, talking about things etc. we are defining and altering that cultural reality. Ideas “catch on” and then perceptions change. So when we take any experience we are automatically filtering it through all our cultural and personal “prejudices” at once.

We look at the moon, and see a face. We look at clouds and see castles. I see fractals everywhere because I am weird. I look at a cumulus cloud and I think about popcorn because they both form themselves according to similar fractal formulas. Now you may think of that the next time you look at a piece of popcorn if you have never done it before. A conversation can actually alter your pereceptions of reality.

“It’s clouds illusions I recall, I really don’t know clouds at all”

But there are nothing else

So the environment (culture) forms us, and we in turn form the culture. But this is not the old dualism in new words like us versus the culture, it really is a monism. We are inseparable from the culture and it is inseparable from us, in a state of continuous Hegelian modification. So “reality” is this ongoing stream of experience.

So this is also how spiritual experience fits in. Let’s look at “burning in the bosom”. (Luke 24:32) When you have several million people describing a similar experience today, and when you see this experience recorded 2000 years ago, this is an experience with as much “warranted assertibility” as you can get, to me.

It is part of our cultural heritage, and there are many who would describe similar phenomena. It satisfies all the criteria for “truth”
in pragmatism.

Do I “know” when I have had such an experience? As much as I can know I have had any experience. I know for a fact that my old karrman ghia is red. No disputing it. I have had the experience of seeing it with my own eyes. I know it as certainly as I can know anything. You have not seen it, but perhaps you believe me that it is true. Maybe you accept it on faith because I would not lie about it. So you have that “knowledge” as well to a lesser degree. It is like knowing that Nairobi Kenya exists. But if you doubted I could send you a picture, and you would have more certainty. But I still could by lying – it could be someone else’s karmann ghia which is red. But we could take steps to “prove” it was mine. At some point, you would be satisified that I really do own a red karrman ghia. You would have “warranted assertibility”.

You could say that the proposition “bukowski owns a red karmann ghia” is “true”. You could say that you “know” that bukowski owns a rkg.

But is it absolutely absolutely certain? What if the whole thing was a carefully crafted hoax?

That is always a possibility, but you would weigh the evidence. You can never know anything in the realm of “cultural experience” with the same certainty that you have with direct experience. I absolutely know I own a rkg, but you can never really totally know.

But what if a hundred different people with nothing to gain from it told you that I really did have a rkg?

I kind of have to take off here unexpectedly for a few hours, so I guess to be continued tomorrow.

So from this point, I guess this is a start if you feel like this is a fruitful direction.

An old ghia huh, good for you. I have a 62 bug being restored.

This whole thing really isn’t a jump for me since it’s part and parcel of the post modernism movement got to toy around with in my yrs in graduate school.

The following items I agree with:

We cannot fully escape our culture. Our language alone is a huge driving force when it comes to how we are even capable of conceptualizing the world (hence my arguments to bdawg about how to deal with the varying conceptions of God in the OT).

But here’s a problem, if we are so enmeshed in cultural constructs that we are product of them, how is it that a new paradigm is ever formed by any individual? How do new cultures get going at all?

Secondly, sure, millions of people agree with you concerning the getting of testimonies, but plenty of people disagree with you too in their own cultures. On what basis do you privelege your cultural constructs as compared to other cultural constructs which make opposing truth claims?

The fact that you own an rkg is something I’ll accept as a belief, I believe that you own one. I am not certain enough about that fact to say it’s knowledge, since for all I know you aren’t who you say you are anyway, which happens on the internet. But, unless I have reason to doubt otherwise, I’ll believe it. I’ve seen rkgs, I know they’re common enough so I know it’s not an outrageous claim.

What I have not seen is God the Father and the Son in bodily form talk to boys in the middle of the woods. I don’t see anything warranted about that. I have seen people claim to have spiritual experiences, I have seen and experienced spiritual ectasies and I believe that you have had real spiritual experiences with a fair degree of certainty-- that’s common enough, I’ve seen it. However, I have zero, zilch reason to go from that proposition to the proposition that “therefore Mormonism is true” anymore than I would conclude from watching a camp meeting that “therefore pentecostalism is true.”

So if we are just going to make an argument about constructing everyday knowledge based on our common experiences, religion really doesn’t fit into this epistemology at all. By definition supernatural experiences are just that, supernatural-- they have to be rare. So how do we get to the point of declaring some religious truth claim as true? There are two things working against us, the first is that there are thousands of religions out there in existence with competing truth claims, with adherents all claiming to have had spiritual confirmation. The second is that religious experience of the degree that it would validate a religious system is rare. Sure, we may feel the presence of God in some vague way, but we can’t be sure that’s actually God, not in any kind of defensible way in a debate.

So unless we want to throw up our hands and say well, I’m the product of a culture, you’re the product of a culture and that is that and become complete relativists, we need something more, some other standard for validating extraordinary truth claims–that is, truth claims about metaphysical reality.

You may protest that I’ve gone from your ‘monist’ system back to what you seem to think is my ‘dualist’ system, but that’s because I see no way around it, if we are going to have a dialogue and have any kind of meaningful discussion about truth at all. If we’re all just products of our cultural environments, I don’t see why you’d think that any of your truth claims are meaningful in any sense, they’re simply inevitable. They don’t reflect any kind of reality, all they really are is a marker of wher eyou’re from. In that case, declaring that God exists or that Joseph Smith had revelations is terribly meaningless.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi nebula

I think you have posed some great questions and are really putting these notions to the test. I appreciate having someone to discuss them with.

I have a busy day today, dealing with “life”. Rotten thing to deal with, but somebody’s got to do it.

I did want to get back with a quick post though, not very fleshed out at all-- my summaries of your points are in black, my very brief replies are in blue

1- how do we escape culture? almost deterministic view

We have freedom, we have a choice to react or respond to our conditioning. Response is freedom, reaction is sin. Sin is giving in to conditioning and is enslaving. Natural man is an enemy to God. Goal is theosis by overcoming the world.

2- opposing truth claims?
There are degrees of certainty like red ghia example. Faith and speculation fills in “terra incognita”. Create theories and see which are most reasonable

3-no personal experience of visions of God, so how “true”?
Culturally coheres with scripture so is possible. Stephen sees God, other biblical references. Visions in general culturally accepted by millions, catholic and muslim, therefore plausible to many

conclusion: reduction to relativism; must have standard for validation of extraordinary truth claims about metaphysics

Metaphysics is beyond truth claims; plausibility is as far as we can go. False dualism of “true-false”. Issue is degree of certainty between faith and perfect knowledge

I know that was fast, but you are pretty speedy yourself.

What subject did you do grad work in? Philosophy?

Hopefully that will give you a start on the direction I am headed!

Thanks!

 

[mfbukowski]

An old ghia huh, good for you. I have a 62 bug being restored.

This whole thing really isn’t a jump for me since it’s part and parcel of the post modernism movement got to toy around with in my yrs in graduate school.

The following items I agree with:

We cannot fully escape our culture. Our language alone is a huge driving force when it comes to how we are even capable of conceptualizing the world (hence my arguments to bdawg about how to deal with the varying conceptions of God in the OT).

But here’s a problem, if we are so enmeshed in cultural constructs that we are product of them, how is it that a new paradigm is ever formed by any individual? How do new cultures get going at all?

nebula

Ok I would like to flesh this out a little more. Because I am a ditz at working this software, I am going to make a couple of short posts instead of a long one with multiple quotes, since I have not quite figured out how to do multiple quote posts.

I will be mixing so many metaphors here I hope it makes sense.

I think this whole thing about being enmeshed in cultural constructs is the classic problem of freedom vs determinism in slightly different terms. Certainly it also relates to “good vs evil” I actually see evil as precisely the inability to break out (overcome) the “cultural constructs”. Since reality is socially constucted we have to be careful about the language here. There are some social constructs we can never break out of. These may be equivalent to “the fall” in some theologies using traditional religious language.

“The Fall” is something we cannot escape, it is not our “fault”. It is part of the human condition. It is also a baseline for our advancement. It is our task as humans to rise above our fallen state,(=“our natural condition”, =" our social conditioning") and ultimately achieve Godhood. God is the only one we know of who has completely left behind his social conditioning. He is the only one who has complete freedom. I am using “God” here in a Mormon 3 separate person sense. His son has done the same, as has the holy Ghost. Anyway, our teacher for achieving this “overcoming the natural man” is our Savior. He is the one who teaches us and raises us and transforms us through his making the human condition “at one” with him. (the at-one-ment)

We are here to overcome the world – that is, that conditioning, and become like him - completely free. Of course we cannot achieve it on our own. We can only do it through"grace" after all we can do.

It is through “special revelation” that we receive this grace. In other words, spiritual experiences break down the cultural conditioning because these are “extra-ordinary, super-natural” experiences that do not appear to be socially conditioned. A spiritual experience is like a bolt of lightning while we are down here slogging through the mud of daily experience. It lifts us to become closer to it’s source which is what saves us-- literally “our savior”. And we receive these experiences as a free gift, so the “grace” analogy. But they spur us on to work on breaking those bonds, to get out of the mud. So in other parlance, the savior lifts us above our own abilities by grace, and we begin on the path to become like Him. If we were like him we would have nothing but what we call “spiritual experiences” continuously.

But we need to practice (repent) daily. It is not easy to overcome our conditioning and our natural tendencies. This is when we draw on past spiritual experiences to let us know that there IS a way to overcome.

New cultures typically do not “get going” – they transform or evolve. Again, there is no “first cause” or “beginnings” in this way of looking at the world.

 

[mfbukowski]

Secondly, sure, millions of people agree with you concerning the getting of testimonies, but plenty of people disagree with you too in their own cultures. On what basis do you privelege your cultural constructs as compared to other cultural constructs which make opposing truth claims?

The fact that you own an rkg is something I’ll accept as a belief, I believe that you own one. I am not certain enough about that fact to say it’s knowledge, since for all I know you aren’t who you say you are anyway, which happens on the internet. But, unless I have reason to doubt otherwise, I’ll believe it. I’ve seen rkgs, I know they’re common enough so I know it’s not an outrageous claim.

What I have not seen is God the Father and the Son in bodily form talk to boys in the middle of the woods. I don’t see anything warranted about that. I have seen people claim to have spiritual experiences, I have seen and experienced spiritual ectasies and I believe that you have had real spiritual experiences with a fair degree of certainty-- that’s common enough, I’ve seen it. However, I have zero, zilch reason to go from that proposition to the proposition that “therefore Mormonism is true” anymore than I would conclude from watching a camp meeting that “therefore pentecostalism is true.”

I don’t have a problem with “competing truth claims”. Literally. These are not my problem. I cannot know what another person has experienced or not experienced. The Mormon perspective is that there are certain folks who will agree with us, and others who won’t. We rather prejudicially call those who agree “the elect”.

The “truth” of Catholicism or Islam or Hindusim or Mormonism cannot be “proven”. That is why they call all of these “Faiths”

And again, we don’t know what God has in store for us. BDawg had an excellent post on I think it was a mormon who turned presbyterian after a revelation that he should, did some extraordinary things he could only do as a presbyterian and then became a mormon again

And again, I would caution you not to get too hung up on this “truth” thing when all we have anyway is “warranted assertibility”.

And God calls us to the best truth we can find.

I personally think it is better to be a Buddhist than a Hindu. The Holy Spirit could I am sure convert someone to be a Buddhist. I think it is better to be a Muslim or Jew than a Buddhist. I think it is better to be Catholic than a Baptist. Of couse these are just my opinions but you get the point. I think if I were not Mormon I would be some kind of Orthodox myself. I think they are actually the closest to us.

And regarding boys who have seen God, we have biblical examples such as Stephen looking into heaven and seeing God. Vision repots in general are commonplace among religions. So “warranted assertibility” says that it is warranted to assert that people have visions.

And again, no one is saying that the first vision “proves” that Mormonism is “true”

 

[mfbukowski]

… The second is that religious experience of the degree that it would validate a religious system is rare. Sure, we may feel the presence of God in some vague way, but we can’t be sure that’s actually God, not in any kind of defensible way in a debate.

So unless we want to throw up our hands and say well, I’m the product of a culture, you’re the product of a culture and that is that and become complete relativists, we need something more, some other standard for validating extraordinary truth claims–that is, truth claims about metaphysical reality.

You may protest that I’ve gone from your ‘monist’ system back to what you seem to think is my ‘dualist’ system, but that’s because I see no way around it, if we are going to have a dialogue and have any kind of meaningful discussion about truth at all. If we’re all just products of our cultural environments, I don’t see why you’d think that any of your truth claims are meaningful in any sense, they’re simply inevitable. They don’t reflect any kind of reality, all they really are is a marker of wher eyou’re from. In that case, declaring that God exists or that Joseph Smith had revelations is terribly meaningless.

As this form shows, I think you are right that debating the validity of a religious experience is perhaps not at all possible. “Debating” almost by definition, is the attempt to win over an oponent. At least it was when I was in debate in High School. But debates are not the best way necessarily to get to the truth. The implication is that one’s quest for truth is motivated by one-upsmanship. I know this too well, when I get going on some of these threads myself, I am not too proud of what I have written when I come back later.

I certainly agree that experiences that validate a religious system are rare. But we only need one in a lifetime. But I think after that it is common to get little flashes of insight which confirm and re-confirm that big flash of experience.

I would disagree that we can’t know it is God. I am not saying that we might not be mistaken at certain times. Uncertainty is always with us, again it is “faith” here.

But just as when you’re driving and you see a car rapidly approaching on the wrong side of the road, you don’t debate or even think about whether you should stay there or not. The “truth” of that experience is not debatable. Could it be a mirror you are driving into? Do you know for sure that the other guy is not going to correct his path? Do you say “well, I still have 20 feet to respond?” No! You know without a doubt in an instant that you are in danger, and you take instant action. I think sometimes we get these “true” experiences just as strongly as these “danger” experiences. They are instant, without doubt and not debatable.

But these are not cultural or linguistically provable. They are personal. Like the red ghia, I could tell you “man, I almost got it on the freeway today”, but I could be lying. You KNOW but you can’t make someone else KNOW.

Does this get us mired hopelessly in relativism? I am not sure, because I am not quite sure what you mean by that or what the consequences would be. Certainly we still have freedom, we have morals, we have the ability to act, the ability to overcome our conditioning. We are not just “products of our enviroment” we are human beings with agency just looking at these issues in a little different way.

“All” we are doing is describing our experience with radical empiricism, and throwing out the idea that there is anything “out there” that we cannot experience, because there isn’t!

If I was on another thread I might say "Oh yeah? PROVE to me there is something other than experience! You can’t! Prove me wrong! You can’t!

I really have to grow up. My wife has been telling me that for years.

It’s just that it does get tricky talking and thinking in a different way. I’ve been thinking this way for probably 40 years now, and more than once I have paused to re-evaluate it myself, but once you really “see” it, it can be a life-changer!

So again, I don’t think that anyone can make “truth claims” about metaphysics in the classic sense.

I would say we can only decide how “warranted” a claim is about experience, and how well a theory works

Speaking of classics, have I mentioned Heraclitus? Classic greek who was right on as far as I am concerned. Plato gave him bad press, so he got sur-pressed and misunderstood by Aristotle.

If we were in India or China, we would not have a problem. Eastern philosophy has been exactly here for a few thousand years, at least back to Taoism. To them “first cause” has no meaning whatsoever, except as an illusion.

 

[mfbukowski]

“In every serious philosophical question uncertainty extends to the very roots of the problem. We must always be prepared to learn something totally new.”— Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

[nebula]

mf,

Sorry this has taken so long, my daughter got sick, then I got sick ,and you know how that goes. Anyway, proving to you that there is something more than experienc isn’t hard- in order to interpret experiences at all requires a priori concepts like space and time and causality. These are concepts we cannot prove have reality ‘out there’ but that we cannot begin to order phenomenon without.

Take a moment and try to imagine nothingness, this includes no space. Is it even possible? Our minds come predesigned with a priori concepts used to order experiences.

That’s why we keep coming back to the question: how do you validate pragmatism as a means of coming to true statements about the world?

We are constantly mistaken about our experiences, including cars coming toward us and all manner of things-- because are our brains are so damned good at filling in the gaps. Too good, even. Our brains can’t stand just to have a series of experiences strung together, it has to construct a story, have them fit together. This is why eye witnesses get things wrong so often, they fill in gaps preconsciously that are simply false. If I am going to trust an experience if that experience is something I am going to construct my view of Reality on (such as a religious experience) it’s not going to stand alone, it’s going to be a part of a larger thinking process and hopefully it’s an experience I can return to again and again to test. A singular experience is not solid ground for defining my entire existence with. It’s just not valid because for all I know like Scrouge I had some bad food which made me lightheaded which because of my recent musings about religion my brain turned around and interpreted as the Spirit- preconsciously.

There is no unmediated experience. That’s why it’s so important to acknowledge the concepts that we use to interpret the world and to always try to better understand and define them, because that’s the only way we can use our experiences to try to get at what ultimately, really, caused them. Experiences alone are theory laden by the time we reflect on them, by the time we experience them, whether or not we like it.

 

[mfbukowski]

If I am going to trust an experience if that experience is something I am going to construct my view of Reality on (such as a religious experience) it’s not going to stand alone, it’s going to be a part of a larger thinking process and hopefully it’s an experience I can return to again and again to test. A singular experience is not solid ground for defining my entire existence with. It’s just not valid because for all I know like Scrouge I had some bad food which made me lightheaded which because of my recent musings about religion my brain turned around and interpreted as the Spirit- preconsciously.

There is no unmediated experience. That’s why it’s so important to acknowledge the concepts that we use to interpret the world and to always try to better understand and define them, because that’s the only way we can use our experiences to try to get at what ultimately, really, caused them. Experiences alone are theory laden by the time we reflect on them, by the time we experience them, whether or not we like it.

Howdy nebula
Missed chatting with you but no problem – I totally get it. My whole academic philosophical career ended due “life”. But you gotta live. It’s more important than philosophy! “An unexamined life is not worth living” implies that there is a “life” to be examined"!

I certainly agree that “experiences alone are theory laden by the time we reflect on them”, but certainly it is wrong to therefore conclude that we shouldn’t change our lives based on spiritual experiences. History is full of people who did change their lives based on such experiences – Paul, Buddha, Francis of Assisi, Theresa of Avila, Swedenborg, BillW, lots and lots of others. (including of course Joseph Smith)

And then we have the social or cultural experience which “coheres” or has some relation to the experiences described by others. If I have an experience described as “burning in the bosom” which is related to a prayer about the truth of some principle, and then others report that they have had similar experiences following similar prayers, we have an interesting phenomenon. These experiences make a real difference in their lives. These reported experiences now make them pay tithing. They work endless hours to support the belief system associated with these experiences. They report that their lives are different than they were before. They act as if these principles are not only true, but a very important factor in their daily lives. The effects of these experiences are measurable in very definite ways.

And 90 percent of the time, these behavioral changes are brought about NOT after a huge life-changing experience report like those of Francis of Assisi or Mohammad, but through the quiet accretion of dozens or hundreds of smaller “burning of the bosom” experiences every time they read certain scriptures, see a leaf blown in the wind, or a butterfly, or discuss the gospel with a friend.

So here you have a body of reported experiences, and you have changes in behavior associated with those experiences which are measurable. Many times the experience itself is described similarly.

At what point does one begin to “trust” these experiences when one starts having similar experiences to those reported?

To me, it is very like the chain of events described in Alma 32, which I know you know, but I will cite anyway because there may acutally be another person reading this,

• “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 heart, 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 enlighten 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.”*
  scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/32

And then through the bulid-up of a body of experiences, it becomes knowledge. But again, it starts with trust.

Trust is one of those issues which I think varies from person to person. Some are just more risk takers than others. If you stand with birdcrumbs feeding birds, some will hang back and grab what is on the periphery because of fear. Others will come up and eat out of your hand.

I think these and other personality issues are what really makes the difference in how willing we are to act on religious experience. This is why I have no problem believing that we could all have different true answers to the question “which church should I join?”