Exploring religious theory

[DigitalShadow]

Disclaimer: This thread is not for the philosophically faint of heart. I am not a member of any church and this thread will explore my thoughts on religion in general. What I am looking for is a deep philosophical discussion rather than references to scriptural doctrine since I am exploring the concept of religion in general as opposed to looking for LDS specific answers. If you do not have an open mind or are easily offended by opposing viewpoints, feel free not to read or contribute to this thread.

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it. I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim). This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings, and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them. In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time. People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America. People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence? I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully. This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Guest tomk]

From our Articles of Faith 1

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So if you have received condemnation from myself or others for your beliefs - we stand in need of your apology. There's no need for it.

At times, we do tend to get a bit "snippy" and "sensitive" concerning our beliefs. Just realize we're human beings, and subject to human failings, including pride and arrogance. Hopefully you can see past all of that.

------------

Now, to address some of your other points:

You said:

I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence?

Because we've learned through our experiences that this is the way God chooses to communicate with us. If we're interested in having a relationship with God on "His terms" then we need to be willing to submit to this method of communication -- through our feelings!

I have had a lot of "unanswered prayers." Meaning, as far as I could tell -- the heavens were silent regarding the matters I was praying for in the moment.

I have also had prayers answered quite dramatically. For example, when I prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true. I received a witness! It does not matter to me if other people can measure my witness. It's my witness! So it is not subject to the questions or doubts of others. I know what I felt was from God. I know it because that same feeling has come to me at other times, under conditions and circumstances that have left no doubt -- there is SOMEONE THERE.

[Guest tomk]

From the Introduction to the Book of Mormon:

We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10. verses 3 through 5 )

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.

[HiJolly]

Disclaimer: This thread is not for the philosophically faint of heart. I am not a member of any church and this thread will explore my thoughts on religion in general. What I am looking for is a deep philosophical discussion rather than references to scriptural doctrine since I am exploring the concept of religion in general as opposed to looking for LDS specific answers. If you do not have an open mind or are easily offended by opposing viewpoints, feel free not to read or contribute to this thread.

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it. I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim). This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

I agree, with one caveat. There is a scripture (no, I won't quote it) that speaks of the 'fruit' of a given choice. Another scripture speaks of experimenting on the spoken word. Yet another says if we want to know, we should live according to the ideas, and then we will know. These are all to the same point.

This brings into the discussion of 'truth' experential evidences, which are subjective to the individual, but are also observable from an empirical POV, by other persons. Case in point: US Mormons (observant ones) live longer than the US average person. While the 'testimony' of the Word of Wisdom may be subjective, there is empirical evidence that it has efficacy. What say you?

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings, and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them. In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

You seem to invalidate feeling and thoughts, even though you have them all the time, and in fact cannot trust in objective 'truth' AT ALL without them. Where is the sense in that? Philosophically speaking, I mean. I think we both know the practical answer, but that's not the discussion, is it?

I think that until you deal up-front with your feelings, you'll never know what is 'true'.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time. People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America. People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

So true. The Zen Buddhists have a good solution for this, as did Socrates and Descartes. Scripture: "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." Change 'life' for 'everything you believe to be true'. Quite risky, and quite valuable. "If you meet the Buddha on the path, kill him!" "The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates "I think, therefore, I am!" -Descartes.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

You state that you do not believe in the value of personal subjective experience, yet that is the only thing informing your every word in this post. Hmmm...

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence? I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully. This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Thoughts, anyone?

Of course there is a good reason to believe based on subjective experience. You do it all day, every day. Oh, you want to include God? Well, that's only a valid proposition if it actually happens, isn't it? Or are you only dissing the "Fake it 'til you make it" mind-view?

I know there are many differing views of religion, with no objective evidence to prove one true and the others false (assuming you ingnore the objective 'fruits' of the religions in question). I am fascinated by the study of other religions and traditions and have grown to LOVE the LDS church in the process. It is SOOOO excellent at what it does. And it does what religion SHOULD do - bringing its members closer to God (and Godliness, of course).

I feel to shout for joy to think that I knew the Church was (and is) true. (with apologies to Brother Brigham)

HiJolly

[WillowTheWhisp]

At one time I didn't believe in anything. It came gradually with me, starting with just saying 'if there's a God' and going on from there to praying to him and then exploring different churches until I settled on the one I finally believed to be true. I believe it to be true because I believe that Joseph Smith was in a similar situation of not knowing which church to join and got an answer he couldn't possibly doubt.

[DigitalShadow]

From our Articles of Faith 1

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So if you have received condemnation from myself or others for your beliefs - we stand in need of your apology. There's no need for it.

At times, we do tend to get a bit "snippy" and "sensitive" concerning our beliefs. Just realize we're human beings, and subject to human failings, including pride and arrogance. Hopefully you can see past all of that.

I was more referring to my experiences in the Bible Belt. I have received some condemnation here for my beliefs (or lack there of) but I have grown a thick skin in that area from previous experiences so no apology necessary and I certainly don't let that color my view of the LDS church. :)

Now, to address some of your other points:

You said:

I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence?

Because we've learned through our experiences that this is the way God chooses to communicate with us. If we're interested in having a relationship with God on "His terms" then we need to be willing to submit to this method of communication -- through our feelings!

I have had a lot of "unanswered prayers." Meaning, as far as I could tell -- the heavens were silent regarding the matters I was praying for in the moment.

I have also had prayers answered quite dramatically. For example, when I prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true. I received a witness! It does not matter to me if other people can measure my witness. It's my witness! So it is not subject to the questions or doubts of others. I know what I felt was from God. I know it because that same feeling has come to me at other times, under conditions and circumstances that have left no doubt -- there is SOMEONE THERE.

I want you to watch something for me.

Michael Shermer

I understand that those experiences are yours and very powerful to you and I in no way want to belittle them, but from my perspective it means nothing other than demonstrating that people are predisposed to remember the "hits" and put less emphasis the "misses" when it comes to supernatural phenomenon which is why there are people who swear by the accuracy of dowsers and psychics when really they aren't doing any better than probability.

[HiJolly]

At one time I didn't believe in anything. It came gradually with me, starting with just saying 'if there's a God' and going on from there to praying to him and then exploring different churches until I settled on the one I finally believed to be true. I believe it to be true because I believe that Joseph Smith was in a similar situation of not knowing which church to join and got an answer he couldn't possibly doubt.

...assuming he believed in his own personal experience, and didn't throw it out as a delusion of a psychotic mind...

HiJolly

ps. I know, he did not have a deluded mind. Just commenting for DS's sake...

[Misshalfway]

Hijolly, you said what I was trying to formulate in my mind. Thank you.

And this may be a sidebar statement, and I know DS that you don't want anything specifically LDS, but I must add this. There is the question...a question for all of us really, is there a God. There are lots of religions that claim that there is a God and then try to explain the nature thereof. But there are specific accounts where people say that they have actually seen God the Father and Jesus Christ. These claims are recorded in places in the Bible and BofM but more importantly there has been a modern man, who says that he say the same thing. He did indeed see and converse with God himself and can then tell us what he was like and what he said and how he said it.

I just wanted to say that there is more than just feelings to go on. There is doctrine and patterns and words to study and then test so that one can determine the truth. Anyone who has truly gained a testimony for themselves, knows that it is anything but blind.

[Vanhin]

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence?

The experience that validates my personal faith is indeed subjective. The fact that an experience is subjective, however, neither validates nor invalidates the reality of the experience or the object (or entity) of the experience to others. I trust you agree with that, correct?

I submit that others can have this same subjective experience, and thereby verify for themselves the reality of the experience or object.

It's not unlike a bag of candy. If I reach in and grab a piece from the bag, unwrap it, and eat it, then I know for myself what it tastes like. I can then turn around to my friends and say, "Hey buds, try this candy, so you know what it tastes like!". At this point, if my friends have not tasted the candy before, they don't know what it tastes like. I know that it has taste, and what it tastes like; though it is impossible to explain it in words, or some other way accurately enough that my friends do not have to taste it themselves to know. But I know it. Should I ever eat the same candy again later, I would be able to recognize it as the same. An experience like this is subjective, but it is no less true that the candy has taste, and distinctive taste at that, and lucky for me, I now know the taste.

Taste is a good example because it is subjective. You really have to taste it yourself to have the experience. If my friends decide never to taste the candy, they will never know that it has taste, and what it tastes like.

That is what a witness of the Holy Ghost is like. Our tastebuds, eyes, or other senses may deceive us, but a witness from God himself directly to our spirit, cannot. Feelings alone are inadequate in describing the witness of the Holy Ghost. It's just like with the candy, there are no words to adequately describe it, so we often use terms that comes closest. We say it speaks to our hearts, and our minds, or we feel something. That's just because we have no way to describe them right. A person must experience it for themselves.

That's why our missionaries encourage people to read, ponder, and pray about the Book of Mormon, for instance. Because that is like reaching in the bag, unwrapping the candy, and popping it in our mouths. Accordingly, the Book of Mormon promises that the experience of the Holy Ghost will validate the truthfulness of the book. After that point, it doesn't matter that others may not believe you, or may try to defy your experience. You know that the candy has taste, and you know what it tastes like. All you can do, is encourage others to find out for themselves.

I know as surely as I am sitting here typing this, that there is a God. I'm not guessing, or hoping any more. I know it. The only way you or anyone else can know it, is to "taste it".

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 17:17)

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[DigitalShadow]

Disclaimer: This thread is not for the philosophically faint of heart. I am not a member of any church and this thread will explore my thoughts on religion in general. What I am looking for is a deep philosophical discussion rather than references to scriptural doctrine since I am exploring the concept of religion in general as opposed to looking for LDS specific answers. If you do not have an open mind or are easily offended by opposing viewpoints, feel free not to read or contribute to this thread.

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it. I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim). This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

I agree, with one caveat. There is a scripture (no, I won't quote it) that speaks of the 'fruit' of a given choice. Another scripture speaks of experimenting on the spoken word. Yet another says if we want to know, we should live according to the ideas, and then we will know. These are all to the same point.

This brings into the discussion of 'truth' experential evidences, which are subjective to the individual, but are also observable from an empirical POV, by other persons. Case in point: US Mormons (observant ones) live longer than the US average person. While the 'testimony' of the Word of Wisdom may be subjective, there is empirical evidence that it has efficacy. What say you?

I've lived my life according to nearly all the standards of the Word of Wisdom long before I had even heard of it. The health guidelines in the Word of Wisdom are not unique to your religion and for the most part are common sense and good medical advice. It comes as no suprise that people who live by those guidelines live longer and that does not present any emperical evidence to the church being true, merely that it contains reasonable health guidelines.

The fruits of my agnostic choices have been far greater than many of my less fortunate fellow man who follow scripture to the letter.

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings, and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them. In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

You seem to invalidate feeling and thoughts, even though you have them all the time, and in fact cannot trust in objective 'truth' AT ALL without them. Where is the sense in that? Philosophically speaking, I mean. I think we both know the practical answer, but that's not the discussion, is it?

I think that until you deal up-front with your feelings, you'll never know what is 'true'.

I don't invalidate feelings and thoughts, I simply put them in the perspective of how reliable they tend to be.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time. People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America. People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

So true. The Zen Buddhists have a good solution for this, as did Socrates and Descartes. Scripture: "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." Change 'life' for 'everything you believe to be true'. Quite risky, and quite valuable. "If you meet the Buddha on the path, kill him!" "The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates "I think, therefore, I am!" -Descartes.

No arguments there.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

You state that you do not believe in the value of personal subjective experience, yet that is the only thing informing your every word in this post. Hmmm...

You are incorrect. I do not believe in the value of beliefs based solely on personal subjective experience. There is an important difference that you missed.

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence? I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully. This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Thoughts, anyone?

Of course there is a good reason to believe based on subjective experience. You do it all day, every day. Oh, you want to include God? Well, that's only a valid proposition if it actually happens, isn't it? Or are you only dissing the "Fake it 'til you make it" mind-view?

I know there are many differing views of religion, with no objective evidence to prove one true and the others false (assuming you ingnore the objective 'fruits' of the religions in question). I am fascinated by the study of other religions and traditions and have grown to LOVE the LDS church in the process. It is SOOOO excellent at what it does. And it does what religion SHOULD do - bringing its members closer to God (and Godliness, of course).

I feel to shout for joy to think that I knew the Church was (and is) true. (with apologies to Brother Brigham)

HiJolly

I think we may be having a miscommunication on subjective and objective evidence for beliefs, so I would like you to name one belief I have based solely on subjective experience.

P.S. I'm enjoying this conversation so much I took the time to quote within a quote everything for extra clarity :)

[DigitalShadow]

The experience that validates my personal faith is indeed subjective. The fact that an experience is subjective, however, neither validates nor invalidates the reality of the experience or the object (or entity) of the experience to others. I trust you agree with that, correct?

I submit that others can have this same subjective experience, and thereby verify for themselves the reality of the experience or object.

It's not unlike a bag of candy. If I reach in and grab a piece from the bag, unwrap it, and eat it, then I know for myself what it tastes like. I can then turn around to my friends and say, "Hey buds, try this candy, so you know what it tastes like!". At this point, if my friends have not tasted the candy before, they don't know what it tastes like. I know that it has taste, and what it tastes like; though it is impossible to explain it in words, or some other way accurately enough that my friends do not have to taste it themselves to know. But I know it. Should I ever eat the same candy again later, I would be able to recognize it as the same. An experience like this is subjective, but it is no less true that the candy has taste, and distinctive taste at that, and lucky for me, I now know the taste.

Taste is a good example because it is subjective. You really have to taste it yourself to have the experience. If my friends decide never to taste the candy, they will never know that it has taste, and what it tastes like.

That is what a witness of the Holy Ghost is like. Our tastebuds, eyes, or other senses may deceive us, but a witness from God himself directly to our spirit, cannot. Feelings alone are inadequate in describing the witness of the Holy Ghost. It's just like with the candy, there are no words to adequately describe it, so we often use terms that comes closest. We say it speaks to our hearts, and our minds, or we feel something. That's just because we have no way to describe them right. A person must experience it for themselves.

That's why our missionaries encourage people to read, ponder, and pray about the Book of Mormon, for instance. Because that is like reaching in the bag, unwrapping the candy, and popping it in our mouths. Accordingly, the Book of Mormon promises that the experience of the Holy Ghost will validate the truthfulness of the book. After that point, it doesn't matter that others may not believe you, or may try to defy your experience. You know that the candy has taste, and you know what it tastes like. All you can do, is encourage others to find out for themselves.

I know as surely as I am sitting here typing this, that there is a God. I'm not guessing, or hoping any more. I know it. The only way you or anyone else can know it, is to "taste it".

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 17:17)

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

I agree with much of what you said. In fact I have actually compared taste in religion to taste in food before. Using that analogy let's explore what I see happening with religion, by comparing different religions to flavors of ice cream.

One person can say to another that this chocolate ice cream tastes great to me, you should try it! Some people will try it and agree, others will try it and disagree, this is because of the subjective nature of taste. Does it then follow for that person based on their subjective experience to proclaim that chocolate is the only flavor of ice cream worth eating and that everyone should eat chocolate ice cream? Let's pretend for the sake of analogy that ice cream doesn't taste good at all to me. I recognize that many people have subjective experiences that work for them and I try all of people's favorite flavors, but none work for me. Is either person truly wrong in this situation?

[lostnfound]

Disclaimer: This thread is not for the philosophically faint of heart. I am not a member of any church and this thread will explore my thoughts on religion in general. What I am looking for is a deep philosophical discussion rather than references to scriptural doctrine since I am exploring the concept of religion in general as opposed to looking for LDS specific answers. If you do not have an open mind or are easily offended by opposing viewpoints, feel free not to read or contribute to this thread.

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it. I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim). This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings, and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them. In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time. People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America. People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence? I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully. This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Thoughts, anyone?

First I am not lds..but your questions are answered in detail in two really good books..

First one is "The evidence demands a verdict" Josh mcdowell and the other is "The case for christ" lee strobel..

To someone is seriously seeking and asking these tough questions. Get those books.

Your line of questioning is somewhat similiar to mine to lds members and others..in that many follow after their reglion with such ferver and for a subjective reasons.."well I prayed about it and it is true" (subjective, because no voice came down from heaven to say it was true), or "I looked into it and it felt right to me" (subjective again)..or i have heard this also "It sounds true to me and nobody can convince me otherwise"

Me personally subjective reasoning to follow after christ would not be enough.. I had to know on something concrete that could be verfied..Historical evidence for Jesus, the historical accuracy of the bible, The historical accuracy of the prophecies of the bible that are still coming true! After all that..my personal up close and personal account of a changed life because of Christ..and seeing changed lives of others because of christ...

I happy you posted this..and I am glad to see that you are seeking. The bible say's seek me and you will find me"

[DigitalShadow]

First I am not lds..but your questions are answered in detail in two really good books..

First one is "The evidence demands a verdict" Josh mcdowell and the other is "The case for christ" lee strobel..

To someone is seriously seeking and asking these tough questions. Get those books.

Your line of questioning is somewhat similiar to mine to lds members and others..in that many follow after their reglion with such ferver and for a subjective reasons.."well I prayed about it and it is true" (subjective, because no voice came down from heaven to say it was true), or "I looked into it and it felt right to me" (subjective again)..or i have heard this also "It sounds true to me and nobody can convince me otherwise"

Me personally subjective reasoning to follow after christ would not be enough.. I had to know on something concrete that could be verfied..Historical evidence for Jesus, the historical accuracy of the bible, The historical accuracy of the prophecies of the bible that are still coming true! After all that..my personal up close and personal account of a changed life because of Christ..and seeing changed lives of others because of christ...

I happy you posted this..and I am glad to see that you are seeking. The bible say's seek me and you will find me"

I agree with your philosophy, but I diverge in belief because I have investigated the historical evidence and accuracy of the Bible myself and been underwhelmed with the results. I won't get into that here because it is a matter for another thread and it is really not something I want to discuss in this setting, but I thank you for the reply.

[lostnfound]

I'm just thrilled that you ask these questions. You my friend are a rare find today! And I have spent alot of time all over the US and different parts of the world finding people that would like to have a concrete reason to believe what they do. Many are just content in the subjective catagory.

[Guest tomk]

I was more referring to my experiences in the Bible Belt. I have received some condemnation here for my beliefs (or lack there of) but I have grown a thick skin in that area from previous experiences so no apology necessary and I certainly don't let that color my view of the LDS church. :)

I want you to watch something for me.

Michael Shermer

I understand that those experiences are yours and very powerful to you and I in no way want to belittle them, but from my perspective it means nothing other than demonstrating that people are predisposed to remember the "hits" and put less emphasis the "misses" when it comes to supernatural phenomenon which is why there are people who swear by the accuracy of dowsers and psychics when really they aren't doing any better than probability.

First, I want to say that I did watch the video, and I really enjoyed it. Parts of it were pretty funny!

In the experiences I have shared, the "hits" and the "misses" as you call them -- the "hits" are what convinced me. The "misses" don't mean the "hits" never happened, nor do they mean the "hits" means something different to me than what I say they are. Nor do the "misses" mean that there is something lacking in God's method of disseminating His witness of truth.

My experiences with God are real experiences. They are not just "me being emotional." And they don't just happen because I "want" them to happen, because they don't happen all the time. Frequency between "hits" does not mean the "hits" don't exist, or that they have other origins. The "hits" are what they are.

It's not possible for me to explain what the rest of the world thinks, feels, or believes. All I know is my own experience.

What I am here to try and do is help you build that bridge from your world of skepticism over to my world of belief in God and being able to have the same witness I have had. But my success in this does depend upon your willingness to keep an open dialogue.

Thanks,

Tom

[DigitalShadow]

I'm just thrilled that you ask these questions. You my friend are a rare find today! And I have spent alot of time all over the US and different parts of the world finding people that would like to have a concrete reason to believe what they do. Many are just content in the subjective catagory.

I believe that you are a rare breed yourself my friend. Nearly all the people I know who fall into the true skeptic category (relying on objective evidence) are either agnostic or atheist.

[Vanhin]

I agree with much of what you said. In fact I have actually compared taste in religion to taste in food before. Using that analogy let's explore what I see happening with religion, by comparing different religions to flavors of ice cream.

One person can say to another that this chocolate ice cream tastes great to me, you should try it! Some people will try it and agree, others will try it and disagree, this is because of the subjective nature of taste. Does it then follow for that person based on their subjective experience to proclaim that chocolate is the only flavor of ice cream worth eating and that everyone should eat chocolate ice cream? Let's pretend for the sake of analogy that ice cream doesn't taste good at all to me. I recognize that many people have subjective experiences that work for them and I try all of people's favorite flavors, but none work for me. Is either person truly wrong in this situation?

Well sure. I understand the point you are making. That's why my example was missing any component of whether the candy tasted good or bad. The truths that were evident from the example of the candy are these: The subject knows 1) that the candy has taste, and 2) what it tastes like. He will then have to be the judge of whether it is good or not.

The other point I was sure to make was that our senses can be deceived. The scriptures describe the witness of the Holy Ghost, as something beyond the senses of the flesh (Matt. 16:17). That's what we mean when we talk of testimony.

Many religions actually appeal to the senses. They either use music (not that there is anything wrong with music), drugs, or some other third thing (as Spongebob would say) to simulate to the subjects the Spirit. I'm not saying they intentionally set out to deceive, but many are lead to believe that this subjective experience represents God speaking to them. This leads to many different organizations each claiming that theirs is the right one.

The true and actual power of the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, will not be the validator of confusion or falsehoods. It will validate only truth, and will testify of the Father and the Son.

That's not to say that people in different religions have not felt the true influence of the Holy Ghost. I believe many people have. Perhaps they felt the Holy Ghost, whenever they did something good for someone else to help them out. Or maybe they felt Him when they had their first child. Maybe they felt the calm assurance of their actions when they apologized to someone for something they did wrong. These are each cases when the Spirit might testify to someone of true principles. They might have even felt the Spirit when they prayed to God for the welfare of their own souls, or those of their children. The scriptures describe the fruit of the Spirit better than I can:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23)

We must learn to recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost in our quest for truth. Alma, a prophet in the Book of Mormon, really teaches well how a person can gain spiritual knowledge. The key ingredient is faith, which is "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1). I don't know if you are willing to explore it, but I encourage you to consider the words of Alma in the following passages: -> Alma 32:26-43. It's not too many verses, but it relates to our conversation. Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[HiJolly]

I've lived my life according to nearly all the standards of the Word of Wisdom long before I had even heard of it. The health guidelines in the Word of Wisdom are not unique to your religion and for the most part are common sense and good medical advice. It comes as no suprise that people who live by those guidelines live longer and that does not present any emperical evidence to the church being true, merely that it contains reasonable health guidelines.

I'd be more impressed if you'd developed your standards in 1833. :-)

The fruits of my agnostic choices have been far greater than many of my less fortunate fellow man who follow scripture to the letter.

I was speaking of a slightly larger demographic, but hey, I'm happy for you, truly.

I don't invalidate feelings and thoughts, I simply put them in the perspective of how reliable they tend to be.

How do you quantify/evaluate the reliability? Since the valuation is by necessity biased? My belief is that thought and emotion, feeling and logic, should be balanced by experience and 'personal bias' (for lack of a better word). I think the distortion of world-view is more pronounced and therefore detrimental for those who cannot so balance these things.

You are incorrect. I do not believe in the value of beliefs based solely on personal subjective experience. There is an important difference that you missed.

I think we may be having a miscommunication on subjective and objective evidence for beliefs, so I would like you to name one belief I have based solely on subjective experience.

No problem. Please list your beliefs, so I can pick a good one. But really, I agree - I got it wrong, somewhere along the road. I do tend to believe that EVERYTHING is subjective, in life. That's my bias. Guess I've known too many fallible scientists in my day (LoL).

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

Let me take another try at this one. I know with all my heart that the LDS (Mormon) Church is true. But I would *never* say that it is "absolutely true". Or "perfect". Oh, I used to, sure. The more I learn, the more I see it for what it is. And thus, I treasure it all the more, even as I at the same time see the flaws.

I think this is a common mistake. Take a 'prophet', for example. Most people seem to think they can't be human, can't make mistakes, can't be stupid at times. They don't believe the Bible, if they are Christian and say they have these views.

At the same time, though, you get agnostics and atheists that do the very same thing - they think a prophet must be 'perfect' or they aren't for real. But that's just crazy. Just because he/she is a prophet, doesn't mean they should need to know your age, or t-shirt size.

The way I think of the Church is, it is true like a good arrow is true. That is, it is STRAIGHT. That is the only way an arrow is useful, is when it is straight. The LDS Church is God's arrow in this day and age, insofar as its influence can be felt, IMO.

Is it the only 'arrow'? No, I really don't think so. God is way too big for that. He works in mysterious ways, and the baptism of our Church priesthood cannot preclude God from working with people in His way - be they Mormon or not.

Yes, I'm an LDS heretic.

HiJolly

[DigitalShadow]

First, I want to say that I did watch the video, and I really enjoyed it. Parts of it were pretty funny!

In the experiences I have shared, the "hits" and the "misses" as you call them -- the "hits" are what convinced me. The "misses" don't mean the "hits" never happened, nor do they mean the "hits" means something different to me than what I say they are. Nor do the "misses" mean that there is something lacking in God's method of disseminating His witness of truth.

My experiences with God are real experiences. They are not just "me being emotional." And they don't just happen because I "want" them to happen, because they don't happen all the time. Frequency between "hits" does not mean the "hits" don't exist, or that they have other origins. The "hits" are what they are.

It's not possible for me to explain what the rest of the world thinks, feels, or believes. All I know is my own experience.

What I am here to try and do is help you build that bridge from your world of skepticism over to my world of belief in God and being able to have the same witness I have had. But my success in this does depend upon your willingness to keep an open dialogue.

Thanks,

Tom

I thank you for taking the time to watch the video, my wife seemed to enjoy it as well :)

Your experiences with God are real to you and to you that is all that matters, but it is not necessarily the case for me. That is the meaning of subjective.

As for bridging the gap between skepticism and religion, I don't know that you fully understand how big of an undertaking that is. View a few threads from a skeptics forum and you might get a better idea. As far as skeptics go, I'm considered a fence-sitting religious sympathizer :)

[DigitalShadow]

I'd be more impressed if you'd developed your standards in 1833. :-)

Sound health principles is a far cry from evidence of divine revelation, but we can agree to disagree on that.

I was speaking of a slightly larger demographic, but hey, I'm happy for you, truly.

And I was merely stating that I haven't noticed any correlation between religious beliefs and success.

How do you quantify/evaluate the reliability? Since the valuation is by necessity biased? My belief is that thought and emotion, feeling and logic, should be balanced by experience and 'personal bias' (for lack of a better word). I think the distortion of world-view is more pronounced and therefore detrimental for those who cannot so balance these things.

I have somewhat of the opposite viewpoint. Personal bias is intentionally avoided when drawing scientific conclusions for very good reasons. In seeking out truth, I take feelings and emotion into account but the final say goes to logic for me.

No problem. Please list your beliefs, so I can pick a good one. But really, I agree - I got it wrong, somewhere along the road. I do tend to believe that EVERYTHING is subjective, in life. That's my bias. Guess I've known too many fallible scientists in my day (LoL).

Scientists are as fallable as any other man, including preachers. The only difference is the method in which information is obtained and I trust the scientific method more than the religious one.

Let me take another try at this one. I know with all my heart that the LDS (Mormon) Church is true. But I would *never* say that it is "absolutely true". Or "perfect". Oh, I used to, sure. The more I learn, the more I see it for what it is. And thus, I treasure it all the more, even as I at the same time see the flaws.

I think this is a common mistake. Take a 'prophet', for example. Most people seem to think they can't be human, can't make mistakes, can't be stupid at times. They don't believe the Bible, if they are Christian and say they have these views.

I respect you for having the courage to truly examine your views.

At the same time, though, you get agnostics and atheists that do the very same thing - they think a prophet must be 'perfect' or they aren't for real. But that's just crazy. Just because he/she is a prophet, doesn't mean they should need to know your age, or t-shirt size.

It is not true to imply that most agnostics and atheists reject prophets for not being "perfect." Indeed I will grant that some do, but many (including myself) simply don't see or feel the evidence for believing in them.

The way I think of the Church is, it is true like a good arrow is true. That is, it is STRAIGHT. That is the only way an arrow is useful, is when it is straight. The LDS Church is God's arrow in this day and age, insofar as its influence can be felt, IMO.

Is it the only 'arrow'? No, I really don't think so. God is way too big for that. He works in mysterious ways, and the baptism of our Church priesthood cannot preclude God from working with people in His way - be they Mormon or not.

Yes, I'm an LDS heretic.

HiJolly

I like your philosophy but disagree with your conclusions :)

[rural]

As someone who identifies religiously as LDS, but culturally identifies with atheists, this thread is awesome.

[Guest tomk]

I thank you for taking the time to watch the video, my wife seemed to enjoy it as well :)

Your experiences with God are real to you and to you that is all that matters, but it is not necessarily the case for me. That is the meaning of subjective.

As for bridging the gap between skepticism and religion, I don't know that you fully understand how big of an undertaking that is. View a few threads from a skeptics forum and you might get a better idea. As far as skeptics go, I'm considered a fence-sitting religious sympathizer :)

Let's have a little optimism, and say, "it has not been the case for you YET."

You're right - that is a huge undertaking.

You said:

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence?

It comes back to the Book of Mormon. Since the LDS faith is the only faith that has the book - if one were to read it and received the promised witness, it would behoove that person to follow it's teachings, and the teachings of Church that brought it forth.

Subjective experience is not the "weaker" position here. It is equally strong and just as valid as empirical evidence. Just because it is personal and not "repeatable" (ie, in a laboratory) doesn't make subjective experiences any less REAL.

I think you are underestimating the power of the witness we speak of. Faith is the evidence (witness) of things NOT SEEN, which are real. By that definition, you can never "measure" someone's "witness" of the truth that God exists. It does not mean God does not exist.

Scientists are constantly finding out they are wrong about things.

But my witness has left me SURE of God's existence. That surety is not able to be broken by new theories. I consider that to be the stronger position. It's liberating to be free from the constraints of what the world requires things to be. Considering how often opinions change in the world at large -- I consider my beliefs to be a source of strength.

[Guest tomk]

If you ever end-up joining a church, any church, because of measureable evidence, then what is going to happen when "better evidence" comes along? Are you going to leave that church, and join the new "better" church?

[MaidservantX]

If you get to the point of trying the flavors of ice cream -- then if you are looking for chocolate, but you can't find it because you are stuck in a tub of vanilla . . .

I'm a big believer in asking -- what do you want for your life; what do you want out of life? If you decide those questions in the sense of the purpose of life and the purpose of your individual life, then it might be of common sense to seek a pathway for that destination. You could listen to others try to teach you what the purpose of life is or ought to be, but we each have to decide for ourselves. I can see easily, depending on the answer to those questions that a person might have for themselves how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Christianity in general; or any religion at all -- might not be the right choice for an individual.

• "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat. "I don't much care where –" said Alice. "Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat. "– so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

[HiJolly]

Sound health principles is a far cry from evidence of divine revelation, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Ok.

And I was merely stating that I haven't noticed any correlation between religious beliefs and success.

Depends on what kind of success you're talking about. Family cohesiveness? Educational achievement? Health? Happiness?(talk about subjective!)

I have somewhat of the opposite viewpoint. Personal bias is intentionally avoided when drawing scientific conclusions for very good reasons.

I totally agree, and would point out that you have limited the scope here to "drawing scientific conclusions". Smart. That is not an "opposite viewpoint" at all.

In seeking out truth, I take feelings and emotion into account but the final say goes to logic for me.

RE: your link to Michael Shermer's excellent video as well as the above comment you made; No one wants to be duped into believing something that is not true. That much is clear. But people have differing standards of truth, where one person will believe everything they are told, and another will not believe anything they are told.

Studying the whys and wherefores of these differences is fascinating indeed, and through psychology, sociology and (whatever am I forgetting) we can use up many lifetimes to try & understand it all. But we don't have lifetimes, individually speaking.

Can I trust my feelings? I am learning to, after first learning as a child that most often I could not. As I get older and more experienced, I have found that under certain specific circumstances I can. The Church and my belief in God has led me to it, and the more I learn, the more this becomes evident.

Scientists are as fallable as any other man, including preachers. The only difference is the method in which information is obtained and I trust the scientific method more than the religious one.

NOMA is a useful concept, and I think in general it is a good approach. I don't blame you for your reliance on the scientific method. I think, though, that when life is over we will all discover that there was more to life than how to build airplanes or clone a dog.

It is not true to imply that most agnostics and atheists reject prophets for not being "perfect." Indeed I will grant that some do, but many (including myself) simply don't see or feel the evidence for believing in them.

I guess I've seen too many attacks against my faith. I think it is a valid point though, to say that if I claim to have a real, honest-to-God prophet, you'd expect them to be 'larger than life'. After all, prophecy seems to be universally accepted as an extraordinary claim, and doesn't that require extraordinary evidence? (I can't count the number of times I've heard that - and I agree that it is a good rule of thumb)

In my experience, the problem seems to be properly understand the role and responsibilities of a prophet.

I like your philosophy but disagree with your conclusions :)

The spice of life.