The Atheism Thread

[UVACoug]

I won't dispute your larger point, mostly because I'm not very interested in debating you, but as to the smaller--specifically, that js's vision was so objective--this is plain wrong. in fact, his vision, and the 9 or so competing versions of it--is proof positive of the subjectivity of spiritual experience.

His experience was objective. The way people interpret it, and the manner in which he communicated it, are subjective. Unless you think he just made it up ... in which case it doesn't really matter.

[UVACoug]

Unless JS didn't see God in the grove, but just claimed it, then we are back to square one. In addition to Jerry Falwell who saw Jesus on a white charger, where Jesus commanded him to take up his ministry. Visions of God are not isolated to the Mormon experience. That someone claims to have seen God does not give any more credence to the existence of God than if they hadn't made that claim. UVaC is placing faith that JS is telling the truth, which is back to what JL is saying.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, and I am not saying that anyone's "knowledge" of God can be based on someone else's testimony (although, the testimony of witnesses is constantly relied on to prove facts in the legal context). I am simply saying that if Joseph Smith saw God, then he would know he exists ... therefore, it is clearly false to say that no one can know that God exists.

I personally believe that one can also gain that kind of knowledge from communicating with God spiritually, but since everyone here seems to be assuming that nothing can exist that can't be observed empirically, I'm not going to even go there. If you start with premise that it is impossible to know anything that can't be empirically observed, the it is impossible to rely on spiritual evidence to support truth. This is merely an assumption though. It doesn't have to be that way.

[Jarid in Cedar]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, and I am not saying that anyone's "knowledge" of God can be based on someone else's testimony (although, the testimony of witnesses is constantly relied on to prove facts in the legal context). I am simply saying that if Joseph Smith saw God, then he would know he exists ... therefore, it is clearly false to say that no one can know that God exists.

I personally believe that one can also gain that kind of knowledge from communicating with God spiritually, but since everyone here seems to be assuming that nothing can exist that can't be observed empirically, I'm not going to even go there. If you start with premise that it is impossible to know anything that can't be empirically observed, the it is impossible to rely on spiritual evidence to support truth. This is merely an assumption though. It doesn't have to be that way.

The trouble with spiritual evidence is that it is heavily influenced by the opinion and viewpoint of person experiencing it. One person will relate an experience and a feeling and say that it was an act of God. Another experiences the same thing, and they say that the universe aligned for them(happy coincidence). Yet another will say that it was the physical symptoms that someone experiences with anxiety.

A parallel is what I call the Mormon four square:

If you are living righteously and good things happen in your life: God is rewarding you for your faith and obedience
If you are living righteously but bad things are happening in your life: Your faith is being tested
If you are not living righteously and bad things are happening in your life: You are being punished for your iniquities
If you are not living righteously, but good things are happening in your life: God is showing his love for the lost sheep.

[ERCougar]

His experience was objective. The way people interpret it, and the manner in which he communicated it, are subjective. Unless you think he just made it up ... in which case it doesn't really matter.

I'm confused. You're gonna have to define "objective" and "subjective" now because you're using them in a way I never have.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, and I am not saying that anyone's "knowledge" of God can be based on someone else's testimony (although, the testimony of witnesses is constantly relied on to prove facts in the legal context). I am simply saying that if Joseph Smith saw God, then he would know he exists ... therefore, it is clearly false to say that no one can know that God exists.

I personally believe that one can also gain that kind of knowledge from communicating with God spiritually, but since everyone here seems to be assuming that nothing can exist that can't be observed empirically, I'm not going to even go there. If you start with premise that it is impossible to know anything that can't be empirically observed, the it is impossible to rely on spiritual evidence to support truth. This is merely an assumption though. It doesn't have to be that way.

Yes, if JS saw God, then it is possible for someone to know that God exists. Who's starting with the premise again?

[ERCougar]

Like JIC, woot, et al say, the difficulty with spiritual experiences is that they are by nature non-reproducible. Because I can't reproduce them, I can't interpret their meaning, I can't judge their validity, and I can't really make any conclusions for myself. In my world, I use the term "subjective" to describe that kind of phenomenon. That's not in a disparaging way--just to illustrate how it's different from scientific knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is inherently individual, and therefore subjective.

Back to my main point, JS took at least 9 versions over a number of years to describe this "objective experience" (whatever that means) he had with God. If he can't agree as to whether he saw God, God and Jesus, or an angel, or if he was told he was forgiven or whether he was to start a new church, I'm not sure how you can draw any sort of objective conclusions. 1832 Joseph may have called 1838 Joseph a heretic.

[UVACoug]

The trouble with spiritual evidence is that it is heavily influenced by the opinion and viewpoint of person experiencing it. One person will relate an experience and a feeling and say that it was an act of God. Another experiences the same thing, and they say that the universe aligned for them(happy coincidence). Yet another will say that it was the physical symptoms that someone experiences with anxiety.

A parallel is what I call the Mormon four square:

If you are living righteously and good things happen in your life: God is rewarding you for your faith and obedience
If you are living righteously but bad things are happening in your life: Your faith is being tested
If you are not living righteously and bad things are happening in your life: You are being punished for your iniquities
If you are not living righteously, but good things are happening in your life: God is showing his love for the lost sheep.

I don't disagree with you at all, and I certainly don't think personal spiritual evidence can ever be the basis for proving to someone else that God exists. I do believe that it is possible for a person to communicate with God spiritually in a way that can't be rationalized away. That is a personal experience, and can't be used as proof. Whether you call that knowledge or something else, I don't really care ... but I don't think it is irrational and I don't think it is fair to tell someone that has had such experiences that they don't really know what they have experienced.

[UVACoug]

Like JIC, woot, et al say, the difficulty with spiritual experiences is that they are by nature non-reproducible. Because I can't reproduce them, I can't interpret their meaning, I can't judge their validity, and I can't really make any conclusions for myself. In my world, I use the term "subjective" to describe that kind of phenomenon. That's not in a disparaging way--just to illustrate how it's different from scientific knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is inherently individual, and therefore subjective.

Back to my main point, JS took at least 9 versions over a number of years to describe this "objective experience" (whatever that means) he had with God. If he can't agree as to whether he saw God, God and Jesus, or an angel, or if he was told he was forgiven or whether he was to start a new church, I'm not sure how you can draw any sort of objective conclusions. 1832 Joseph may have called 1838 Joseph a heretic.

Again ... you are talking about proof, not knowledge. You are assuming that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge, yet you offer nothing to support that assumption.

I agree that subjective knowledge (and I am using the meaning of "subjective" that you are using ... in the mind) is not easily transferable or provable. That doesn't mean it isn't knowledge. Knowledge and proof of knowledge are not the same thing. It is possible to "know" something that you can't prove. For example, you can "know" that you like the taste of chocolate. Can you prove that to anyone else? No. Can you reproduce that knowledge for someone that doesn't like chocolate? No. But you still know that you like it.

The word "knowledge" has always included the concept of subjective knowledge. Of course woot will come on and try to use fMRI data to show that the concept of "like" is empirically verifiable. While that may be true today (I am skeptical), it certainly wasn't true 100 years ago. Did I not really know that I don't like chocolate before fMRI technology was invented? Were preferences for certain foods not known before it was understood that taste was a biological phenomenon that could be measured?

Any definition of "knowledge" that doesn't include subjective knowledge is entirely useless. Such a definition assumes that the scientific method is the only source or truth, which presupposes that you can't know that God exists.

[woot]

I don't disagree with you at all, and I certainly don't think personal spiritual evidence can ever be the basis for proving to someone else that God exists. I do believe that it is possible for a person to communicate with God spiritually in a way that can't be rationalized away. That is a personal experience, and can't be used as proof. Whether you call that knowledge or something else, I don't really care ... but I don't think it is irrational and I don't think it is fair to tell someone that has had such experiences that they don't really know what they have experienced.

But it is irrational, by definition. Try not to think of it in a disparaging way. The neutral definition of the word is a perfect fit. A lot of believers embrace this fact rather than insisting otherwise.

[ERCougar]

Again ... you are talking about proof, not knowledge. You are assuming that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge, yet you offer nothing to support that assumption.

I agree that subjective knowledge (and I am using the meaning of "subjective" that you are using ... in the mind) is not easily transferable or provable. That doesn't mean it isn't knowledge. Knowledge and proof of knowledge are not the same thing. It is possible to "know" something that you can't prove. For example, you can "know" that you like the taste of chocolate. Can you prove that to anyone else? No. Can you reproduce that knowledge for someone that doesn't like chocolate? No. But you still know that you like it.

The word "knowledge" has always included the concept of subjective knowledge. Of course woot will come on and try to use fMRI data to show that the concept of "like" is empirically verifiable. While that may be true today (I am skeptical), it certainly wasn't true 100 years ago. Did I not really know that I don't like chocolate before fMRI technology was invented? Were preferences for certain foods not known before it was understood that taste was a biological phenomenon that could be measured?

Any definition of "knowledge" that doesn't include subjective knowledge is entirely useless. Such a definition assumes that the scientific method is the only source or truth, which presupposes that you can't know that God exists.

All I said was that JS' experience was proof positive that spiritual experience is subjective. I have thoughts on your knowledge idea but I'm not all that interested in that debate.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't disagree with you at all, and I certainly don't think personal spiritual evidence can ever be the basis for proving to someone else that God exists. I do believe that it is possible for a person to communicate with God spiritually in a way that can't be rationalized away. That is a personal experience, and can't be used as proof. Whether you call that knowledge or something else, I don't really care ... but I don't think it is irrational and I don't think it is fair to tell someone that has had such experiences that they don't really know what they have experienced.

Nor do I. My point is that we all interpret any experiences through our own prism. That prism is polished, shaped and biased by our thoughts, even by our expectations. This doesn't make the interpretation irrational, but it does allow the interpretation to be subjected to scrutiny.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, and I am not saying that anyone's "knowledge" of God can be based on someone else's testimony (although, the testimony of witnesses is constantly relied on to prove facts in the legal context). I am simply saying that if Joseph Smith saw God, then he would know he exists ... therefore, it is clearly false to say that no one can know that God exists.

I personally believe that one can also gain that kind of knowledge from communicating with God spiritually, but since everyone here seems to be assuming that nothing can exist that can't be observed empirically, I'm not going to even go there. If you start with premise that it is impossible to know anything that can't be empirically observed, the it is impossible to rely on spiritual evidence to support truth. This is merely an assumption though. It doesn't have to be that way.

Wow you love those straw men, don't you? Nobody has said that.

[UVACoug]

But it is irrational, by definition. Try not to think of it in a disparaging way. The neutral definition of the word is a perfect fit. A lot of believers embrace this fact rather than insisting otherwise.

How is relying on personal experience as evidence of truth irrational? What definition of "irrational" says that. It isn't objectively verifiable, but I have never seen a definition of rationality that requires objective verification.

[UVACoug]

All I said was that JS' experience was proof positive that spiritual experience is subjective. I have thoughts on your knowledge idea but I'm not all that interested in that debate.

Well ... I thought that was the debate we have been having. If you are having another debate, then I am completely lost.

[UVACoug]

Nor do I. My point is that we all interpret any experiences through our own prism. That prism is polished, shaped and biased by our thoughts, even by our expectations. This doesn't make the interpretation irrational, but it does allow the interpretation to be subjected to scrutiny.

It sounds like we are on the same page.

[UVACoug]

Wow you love those straw men, don't you? Nobody has said that.

Several people have said that no one can have knowledge of God because there is no objectively verifiable evidence of his existence. In fact, I believe you were one of the people that said that (or at least that most people that say they have knowledge of God don't really have it for that reason).

How is that different than saying for something to be true, it must be testable with the scientific method? Isn't the purpose of the scientific method to discover objectively verifiable facts?

I will admit I am not as well educated in the scientific method as I could be, so if I am wrong, please correct me. I am struggling to see the straw man here though.