39 Comment(s)

1. The problem is that Alma 32 narrows the topic down to Alma’s words which appear to be more ethical or general commands rather than existential claims. As such the pragmatic approach of evaluation in terms of an ethical foundation seems fine.

   Comment # 1 by clarkgoble | Jan 3, 2007 | Reply

2. To add, as a general principle, if one has some projective framework with which to explain the world and tries it out (sees how well it works) then there is, I think, justification for taking it as reasonably accurate. One can debate how well that fits Alma’s analogy here. But in principle that seems to work.

   The question then becomes how much predictive and explanatory power the claims of the gospel has. However to merely reduce this to “feeling good” ignores the role of context in Alma’s example.

   Comment # 2 by clarkgoble | Jan 3, 2007 | Reply

3. clarkgoble:

   I understand where you’re coming from here. Expanding on the “Alma” verses, I think that the general process by which investigators are encouraged to gain “Testimonies” about any subject, not just the ethical commands in Alma, is to pray about the particular question or claim, and base their conclusion on what they then feel and experience. In this fashion, many people end up concluding that the Book of Mormon, and its associated story, is “True” based on the things they feel and experience as they read and pray. The point of my addressing this subject is that they jump to conclusions that are not justified.

   The only thing that they can legitimately conclude is that they have had a positive experience associated with their reading and praying. As I point out in the paragraph on the New Testament reader, this may even lead to their becoming a better person by virtue of these experiences. But this sheds absolutely no light on whether certain claimed historical events actually occurred. People in very different faiths, as equally sincere as LDS investigators, have very similar experiences, and draw very different conclusions about certain historical events, who God is, how he interacts with the world, how he expects us to behave, etc. My point is that this is not the way to establish factual truth. People end up with fallacious opinions about the world that are not justified by the evidence, and we need only read the history of mankind to see the results of this process.

   Comment # 3 by Questions... | Jan 3, 2007 | Reply

4. Well base upon what they experience, yes. But that’s not bad. After all everything is ultimately grounded in experience. The question is how well grounded they are. To deny the utility of this is to deny that experience can ground anything, which seems silly.

   Now one can debate about what kinds of experience ought ground our beliefs as knowledge. But that’s an other issue I’ve been dealing with over at my blog the last while. (And hope to return to now that the holidays are over)

   However any criticism has to move to a more narrow form to be successful. For instance to argue that people of different faiths have “very similar experiences” that ground different and contradictory beliefs has to be justified. How are we to know they are similar? And even if we find some that are similar (and thereby perhaps unjustified) does it follow that all are?

   Put simply, to treat this as a logical fallacy one has to cut ones distinctions carefully. If one doesn’t then that argument tends to be the one guilty of a logical fallacy.

   Comment # 4 by clarkgoble | Jan 3, 2007 | Reply

5. Intriguing post.

   I too have thought about some of the logical fallacies we frequently rely upon in building faith, testimony, and acquisition of “truth.” For instance, on my mission (just a few years ago), there was a big focus on using the Book of Mormon as “proof” or “evidence” of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, and then using Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling as “proof” of the truth of his other revelations, scriptures, etc.

   The reasoning went something like this: since only a prophet could bring forth a “true” book of scripture, then establishing the Book of Mormon’s truth establishes that Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet. Although the definition of “true” and the criteria used to establish the Book of Mormon’s “truth” are rather subjective, the premise seems sound enough. If we assume that there is a way to establish the Book of Mormon’s truth and that only a prophet could bring forth a “true” book of scripture, then proving the Book of Mormon’s truth would establish that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet.

   However, this is where the reasoning gets to be questionable. As missionaries, we were instructed to teach investigators that, once they knew that the Book of Mormon was true and hence that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that they would then know that the other books of scripture Joseph produced and the doctrines he taught were true, that the authority he claimed was legitimate, and that the church he established was what it claimed to be–the only true and living church on the face of the earth.

   The problem is, we never established (and probably couldn’t) that a prophet can only produce “true” revelations or establish “true” churches. As Joseph Smith was prone to saying and doing things that weren’t always inspired (such as his “revelation” to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada), establishing that he’s a prophet in no way establishes that any particular revelation, scripture, or church that he produced is itself true.

   Essentially, an investigator should treat the truth of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the Book of Abraham, the truth of the Church, etc., as separate issues. Since even a prophet is human and is prone to error, the he may produce both true and false revelations.

   Comment # 5 by Steve M. | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

6. That’s a good point Steve. After all there is always the question (often historically raised during Joseph’s life) that Joseph became a fallen prophet. i.e. that after a certain point his revelations weren’t revelations.

   However while the argument isn’t strictly true it does provide a prima facie reason for accepting Joseph’s later revelations putting the burden of proof on those who claim Joseph became a fallen prophet.

   Is it “proof?” Well it depends upon what one considers proof. It’s clearly not a deducted proof. But anyone arguing for deductive reasoning in all this is simply setting the bar too high or misunderstanding what is possible through experience. Is it an inductive solid reason? Certainly.

   Comment # 6 by clarkgoble | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

7. Just a note that I put up a longer (and perhaps more technical) response at my blog. I consider a few ways of thinking about Alma 32.

   Comment # 7 by clarkgoble | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

8. So many different topics to address in the thoughtful replies here! I will certainly acknowledge that I am not formally trained in philosophy or logic, and am taking a more ‘practical’ approach, so please bear that in mind in all of my comments.

   clarkgoble said:

   “After all everything is ultimately grounded in experience.”

   On one level, certainly true, but one of the goals in using the scientific method is to base conclusions on evidence, and not rely on any one person’s individual or anecdotal experience. This is the way science has discovered how the universe actually works, without having to rely on the experiences/opinions of any given individual.

   clarkgoble said:

   “…to argue that people of different faiths have “very similar experiences” that ground different and contradictory beliefs has to be justified. How are we to know they are similar?”

   Again, I take a practical approach here. I understand that it is, almost by definition, impossible to be sure the experience one person has is the same as somebody else’s, for example even in something as basic as the perception of color. Is my experience of green the same as yours? So if we require too much in this regard, we will get nowhere.

   What I refer to is fairly straightforward: a Mormon reads the Book of Mormon, and based on his/her experiences concludes that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon was translated from a physical set of gold plates, and is an historically valid account of ancient civilizations. A Muslim will read his/her Koran, and based on their experiences conclude that an angel literally visited their Prophet, that Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God, along with a wide variety of other claims that the Mormon will disagree with, etc. There’s no way to know how similiar their experiences are phenomenologically, but from a practical standpoint, they draw (in my opinion) conclusions that are not justified by their experiences, which are ‘probably’ fairly similar (to me, anyway, this is a reasonable judgment).

   steve m said:

   “The reasoning went something like this: since only a prophet could bring forth a “true” book of scripture, then establishing the Book of Mormon’s truth establishes that Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet. Although the definition of “true” and the criteria used to establish the Book of Mormon’s “truth” are rather subjective, the premise seems sound enough.”

   Thanks for your post and thoughts. With regard to my quote from your remarks, this is the first domino to fall, leading to a cascade of other dominos. But if the first isn’t valid, how can any of the rest be valid? How can one’s personal experiences/feelings provide reliable information on claims that are physical and historical in nature? Again, from a practical standpoint, the investigator has a positive experience of some type associated with reading the Book of Mormon, and will end up jumping to conclusions about its “Truth” and historical validity that are simply not justified by that experience.

   People often marvel at the Book of Mormon itself, in terms of its complexity and other aspects, and this can in part form part of their Testimonies. Human beings have been capable of creative and incredibly complex feats (classic literature through the ages, the simply unbelievable abilities of so-called “autistic savants”, musical geniuses, child prodigies, etc.). People are often (understandably) tempted to credit God with these otherwise unexplainable things. But this is the same “God of the Gaps” that biology and evolutionary understanding have basically invalidated, and which will be invalidated here as our scientific understanding of the human mind grows in the coming years.

   Also, to clarify my own position, unlike the more ‘fundamentalist’ atheists, or materialists, I am very open to what is often called the “spiritual” or “transcendental” realm, and am reminded of Shakespeare’s “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” So I acknowledge the possibility of things outside the current realm of scientific thinking. But I think we need to approach these experiences using the tools and approach of science, to avoid the unjustified and false conclusions voiced by the traditional religious faiths.

   Comment # 8 by Questions... | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

9. “Questions” gives us a good “comparative religion” analysis here. However, his useful observation about the “fallacious” conclusions stop too soon.

   He fails to “bring[ ] the tools, logic, and approach of scientific inquiry” to examine the observations. In fact, he seems to simply throw the observations away.

   What kind of a scientist throws out the data, just because the original hypothesis for the experiment no longer seems valid? A true scientist searches for new ways to explain the data, and for more data.

   To me, the fact that people can “replicate” this “experiment” and get the same results — across a wide spectrum of religious traditions — holds great promise of discoveries and explanations yet to be made.

   Comment # 9 by Bill Scheurer | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

10. Bill,

    I’m a little puzzled by your post, since I basically agree with what you’re saying. Perhaps you read only the initial blog entry, and not the thread that followed, where I further clarified my position:

    “But I think we need to approach these experiences using the tools and approach of science, to avoid the unjustified and false conclusions voiced by the traditional religious faiths.”

    I’m not advocating throwing out the experiences themselves; just the faulty conclusions.

    I don’t think we’re in disagreement here.

    Comment # 10 by Questions... | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

11. Have you ever argued with someone really smart and thought, “I bet if this person took my point of view, they could argue it better than I could?” Well, my point of view is that you are describing the way God works. Kind of like saying, “The church said that when we felt a burning inside that it was the Spirit. Now we find out that it is brain-waves and neuro-transmissions! So this proves the church was lying!” — Are you sure that doesn’t just prove the church was telling the truth? You all seem like a bunch of smart people, could anyone make an argument that validates Alma 32?

    Try this on for size: faith is, by God’s design, logic-defying; if it weren’t set up that way then people could really truly intellectualize their way into the truth. If not so, simple minds (like you, mr. anon) would be disadvantaged in discovering the truth.

    Comment # 11 by anon | Jan 4, 2007 | Reply

12. Questions: I have perused your post several times to see if i could spot a logical fallacy that you identify or isolate from Alma 32. I am unable to spot the fallacy you suggest. Perhaps I am just dense, but could you lay out the logical fallacy in either premise form or explain it to me?

    Comment # 12 by Blake | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

13. Blake said:

    “I have perused your post several times to see if i could spot a logical fallacy that you identify or isolate from Alma 32. I am unable to spot the fallacy you suggest. Perhaps I am just dense, but could you lay out the logical fallacy in either premise form or explain it to me?”

    Perhaps I mistitled my submission to some degree. The fallacy is more in how these verses are misapplied in the search for Truth, resulting in unjustified conclusions. As clarkgoble pointed out, the specific content in this section of Alma addresses more general or ethical commands, and as such does not internally display the logical fallacy I am trying to point out.

    As a matter of practice, the Church, and its teaching and missionary system, adapt verses like this as the basis for developing a ‘Testimony’ which will include a wide variety of both ethical commands, but also specific historical events and facts. Using the concept of ‘likening the scriptures unto ourselves’ the Church applies verses like this in a broader context, and this is where, I believe, the ‘Truth’ takes a major hit. Another examle might be these verses from D&C 9:

    ” 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then
    you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your
    bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
    9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have
    a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong;
    therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”

    The original context specifically addresses Martin Harris’s failure to translate from the plates, but using the ‘likening’ principle, the Church at large recommends the same practice in order to establish any kind of truth: whether or not God appeared in person to visit Joseph Smith, whether he had and translated certain physical plates made out of gold, which contained a valid historical record of ancient peoples, etc.

    The logical fallacy is how people have spiritual experiences of various sorts, and end up drawing conclusions about various matters that are simply not justified by these experiences. The logic here is: “If I have experience X, then facts Y must be true” and this is where things go awry.

    As pointed out above, people from diverse religions and cultures have (what is most likely) very similar spiritual experiences, but end up believing very different and typically mutually exclusive things about God, the world, etc. It is only through applying the tools and approach of science that we can end up truly understanding what these spiritual experiences are all about, and will (hopefully) help us more fully understand the truth and significance of these experiences.

    Another popular example of the problems created by this approach is the subject of Evolution - some people will use the approach in these verses and endorsed by the Church, and after varying degrees of study (with their comprehension of the sometimes complex subject matter uncertain), pray about it, and conclude that it is wrong. They have thus established their belief system, which includes factual statements about the physical universe, on the basis of their subjective experiences, effectively setting aside current or even future physical evidence. Further, this is done on the basis that spiritual truth obtained by revelation ‘trumps’ scientifically grounded concepts, by definition. While science is “self-correcting” as new evidence, ideas and theories develop, religious beliefs are not. Sam Harris elaborates on these themes extensively in his writings. (I do understand that the Church officially has a ‘neutral’ position on Evolution, but you know what I’m talking about here.)

    I apologize for the apparent confusion the title of my submission created, but hope that the subsquent discussion clarifies what I am trying to communicate.

    anon:

    I really think you are missing my point. Nowhere do I deny that when people have spiritual experiences, that it could be the presence of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might turn out to really be). It is in how they then apply, or rather misapply, those experiences, and end up drawing unjustified conclusions about various issues, which are typically mutually exclusive from one faith to another, or even from one person to another in the same faith.

    As for faith being logic-defying: my studies in Eastern disciplines have been helpful here, and I fully acknowledge that there may be states of consciousness that may transcend our normal limits of logic and rationality. But for me, the key concept here is transcend. Using an example from science, the discoveries of Einstein and others in the area of Quantum Physics introduced a new dimension to our understanding of the physical universe. These concepts didn’t invalidate the prior Newtonian understanding, or render those principles unusable. They just placed them in a much wider context, where it pretty accurately described how things work in much of the physical world, but were inadequate to deal with others (specifically the subatomic world).

    Similarly, genuine spiritual experiences, once they’re properly understood and freed of personal bias and misunderstanding, may transcend and include logic and rational understanding, which in my mind is different from “defying” logic.

    Comment # 13 by Questions... | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

14. Basically, what I am saying is: go further — explore alternative interpretations of the data — ones that address the full range of all the observations. That is the next step in the science of faith.

    Comment # 14 by Bill Scheurer | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

15. Questions refers to Sam Harris as one of his recent influences — a most unfortunate choice:

    Sam Harris’s Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture
    By John Gorenfeld, AlterNet
    The best-selling author of “The End of Faith” may argue against Christianity, but he is also supportive of phenomena such as reincarnation and ESP, and calls for “compassionately killing” terrorist suspects from the “Muslim hordes.” Read more »

    I finished reading his Letters to a Christian Nation yesterday. The Alternet post (capsule above) that came in my inbox this morning had nothing to do with my reactions to this book, although it certainly reinforces them.

    I found this book to be utterly juvenile in both its conclusions and approach. I mean this literally. It sounds like stuff we used to say in our mid-teens when first breaking out of the religious worldview. I will not go into details. The holes in his logic and his blind assumptions are too many to bother.

    I will give just one illustration. He lumps everyone and everything religious together, and then tags them all with the harmful extremes. He makes no distinction between the heretic and the person who burns the heretic. Burning and being burned for your faith are qualitatively different moral acts.

    It also was immensely unpleasant. I sometimes watch Fox News just to see how other people are viewing events. But, most often it becomes so distasteful that I have to turn it off. It actually makes me feel like I need to take a shower. That is how this book strikes me.

    For god’s sake (to borrow an expression), if you are going to read atheist works, read something worthwhile, like Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell. This book makes a well-reasoned argument — based primarily on the person of Jesus himself (as reported), and secondarily on the questionable fruits of his adherents.

    While I disagree with Russell, his work is rigorous and useful. It helps launch further inquiry into the person of Jesus and what it might mean to be a follower of him.

    I know Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell is a friend of mine. Sam Harris is no Bertrand Russell.

    Comment # 15 by Bill Scheurer | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

16. Questions said: How can one’s personal experiences/feelings provide reliable information on claims that are physical and historical in nature?

    Don’t get me wrong. I totally agree that feelings aren’t solid grounds to make claims about physical or historical occurences. I was just saying that the premise we adapted in my mission wasn’t entirely flawed, if we allow for some rather bold assumptions (i.e., that there is a reliable method for establishing the Book of Mormon’s “truth,” and that only a prophet could bring forth such a “true” book). Of course, these assumptions are problematic in and of themselves. So if you ask me, I don’t think our approach to “proving” the truth of the literal truth of the Book of Mormon and the Church was logically sound at all. But to us missionaries, and to most of our investigators, it sounded logical enough at the time.

    I think that someone can have an experience with the Book of Mormon or the Church and conclude that they are “true” in that they teach solid principles and do generally lead to a more productive and fulfilling lifestyle. However, I personally feel that concluding that the Book of Mormon is a literal history on the basis of feelings is unjustified.

    Comment # 16 by Steve M. | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

17. Just a few notes to contribute:

    First, I entirely agree with Bill. Sam Harris’ book and approach is shallow, intolerant polemic that is the mental equivalent to fundamentalist bible bashers of my West Virginia mission experience. There is a lot of well reasoned approaches to question aspects of religion and they are not hard to find. My favorite is David Hume only because my best Philosophy prof brainwashed me to that effect years ago.

    Second, the word ‘truth’ is being bandied about without any rigorous attention to what it means. I want to distinguish between ‘truth’ as being accurate and verifiable through scientific inquiry and ‘truth’ as being ethical, divine and available through inspiration.

    I think Alma’s instructions (or Christ’s for that matter) are useful when establishing ethical, divine truths that aid in defining purpose, potential and the direction one should live. I don’t think that it is particularly useful in establishing truth from a scientific standpoint. I think that one can be inspired to believe a wide variety of things that may transcend empirical reasoning (if one takes a broad interpretation of the potential for incompleteness of any empirical theory - that truths can exist for which no proof is available.); however, it is not prudent to live one’s life based on such beliefs.

    I may be venturing into controversial territory by saying that truth, insofar as historical questions and the Book of Mormon are concerned is more of an ethical or purposeful inquiry of the message contained within the Book, and not a confirmation of the physicality of the book’s history. I confess that my reading of the scriptures is a very literary one, which gives a lot of weight to the author and translator of a book. The scriptures provide plenty of metaphors (or parables) that hint at the underlying divine message - a message for which confirmation is available by following the advice of Alma.

    In short, feeling do provide sufficent evidence (subject to a person following the pattern in Alma and in D&C 9) to confirm spiritual truth, but only experience, experiment will provide confirmation of verifiable truth.

    As a side note, I believe that most of the experiences and experiments we end up doing in life is a direct consequence of our beliefs and hopes in the spiritual and divine.

    Comment # 17 by Ricercar | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

18. FWIW, for many years in in increasing detail, I’ve argued that the epistoloogy in Alma 32 directly compares with the epistomoology in Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. See, for example, my long essay in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7:2, “Paradigms Crossed.”

    Proof texting from D&C 9 about scriptural reliance on “feelings” overlooks a great deal. (Not just that it concerned Oliver Cowdery, rather than Martin Harris.) I’ve also presented on that the topic of various ways prayers are answered at a Sunstone some years ago. A more recent presentation is here:

    http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

    For those who care, my essays suggest that the kinds of religious experiences reported in LDS scripture and in the LDS community do compare favorably with those outside. Only the expectation that LDS should hold a monopoly on a static, absolute truth makes such a thing disturbing. I find that the circumstance tends to enhance the value of LDS reports. “Is this not real?” Alma says, but continues to remark that such knowledge is “not perfect.” The process goes on and on. Fortunately, D&C 1 clearly establishes that LDS form LDS truth claims should be non-exlcusive and incomplte with respect to truth and revelation,

    Kevin Christensen
    Pittsburgh, PA

    Comment # 18 by Kevin Christensen | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

19. “Question” (#8), I think the one consensus that philosophy of science has arrived at the last 100 years is that science is never purely about evidence. Put an other way there is no fact/theory divide. So to appeal to that kind of positivism that even the positivists ended up rejecting (see for example Quine) is a mistake I think.

    One need not read much history of how science is done in practice to realize that the experiences of individual scientists very much has a lot to do with things. That’s not to deny that reality acts on us in a way that ignores our ideas. And it is that fact that allows science to progress. But the only way to avoid that in religion is to argue that there is nothing real to religion. i.e. that spiritual experiences are intrinsically not real. But that then sort of leads one to a circular argument that ends up just being based upon your preconceptions. (Rather ironically so)

    Regarding similarity of experiences, I think my point remains. You’re making “experience” far too wide. We’re not talking about a careful examination of the color green. (Although ironically colors are very culturally dependent - something that has been of interest to philosophers or language for quite some time) If by “experience” one means all reactions to reading any sacred book then that is ridiculously wide.

    Consider an other example of a sad movie. By your exact logic one would have to say that someone touched, sad and crying is having the same experience as someone who found it silly and hated the movie. But that’s ridiculous and of course the experiences are radically different. You don’t allow that kind of distinction in religious experiences though. They are all the same. That’s a massive logical fallacy though.

    Now of course what you are getting at is whether one can adjudicate based solely upon an outside observer can know based upon only the report of belief or disbelief. And in that you are completely correct. My point isn’t to dispute that which is just to suggest it is rather ultimately irrelevant.

    Comment # 19 by clarkgoble | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

20. Just to comment on Kevin’s comment. One should note that one needn’t adopt Kuhn (whose philosophy I find ultimately problematic) to reject the fact/theory distinction. As I said there is pretty much consensus on that. Kuhn himself admitted that he conflated many separate ideas under “paradigm.”

    Comment # 20 by clarkgoble | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

21. I appreciate all the thoughtful replies. Given their number, and that of the issues addressed, I won’t attempt to address each one individually. A few comments:

    1. In many respects, I am clearly out of my depth in terms of academic background in philosophy and related areas, and defer to the others on the various points made. But again, approaching things from a practical level, I still see this: people in different religious traditions base their mutually contradictory beliefs on spiritual experiences that, it at least seems to me, are sufficiently similar to each other, and to the basis for many (most?) LDS testimonies. They can’t all be “true” and right. And I see nothing unique in LDS spiritual experience and testimonies in this regard.

    2. Many (most?) LDS ‘testimonies’ about factual issues (for example, Book of Mormon historicity) are problematic, in that these spiritual experiences have no basis upon which this kind of truth can be established. Attitudes toward Evolution, often similarly derived, also illustrate this point. This is one of the primary points I wished to make in this blog posting.

    3. I was also frustrated with much in Sam Harris’s books, although the John Gorenfeld article cited by Bill seemed to me to be pretty biased. I would have loved to be able to read the actual interview in its entirety. Not having yet read some of the other authors cited (Russell, Hume etc.), Harris’s and Dawkins’ books, despite their flaws, were helpful to me in pondering and formulating my thoughts. Not throwing the baby out with the bath water comes to mind. Nevertheless, these particular books are not crucial to my thinking, although I do ponder many of the thoughts that have arisen as I’ve read them. For example, a few hundred years down the road, will we see our current religious faiths as just as quaint and irrelevant as we now view the ‘gods’ of Greece and Rome? Hopefully we will have a more complete, valid, even universal understanding of the spiritual dimension of our existence, and I suspect it will bear little resermblance to current faiths and their claims about god, the world, and each other.

    4. Apologies for the careless mention of Martin Harris, rather than Oliver Cowdery, when discussing D&C 9.

    Again, I acknowledge the limitations of my level of sophistication in the technicalities of the discussion. I maintain an open mind, hoping for increasing understanding as I continue to read and ponder. I realize my current views will undoubtedly need reformulating as new evidence and understanding become available, and to borrow a phrase from the scriptures, I long for a day when “I shall know even as also I am known.” As I age, however, I am less and less confident that day will come.

    Comment # 21 by Questions... | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

22. Just one more item as recommendation and not contribution:

    I sympathize with your struggle in many ways. Recently I listened a discussion that influenced my outlook on religion, history and interpretation on CBC Radio’s program “Ideas”. The three part interview with Richard Kearney of Boston College explores how both fundamentalist believers and adamant atheists are likely asking the wrong question when they query “Does God exist?”

    The podcast is available through itunes and the cbc radio website. The program is called “The God Who May Be” and discusses some of these issues from a Catholic philosophical perspective. Kearney was an associate with Derrida, Levinas and others and has some insight into their personal beliefs.

    Comment # 22 by Ricercar | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

23. The greatest problem with the Alma 32 “experiment” is that the text provides no time schedule. As such, comparing it to a scientific experiment is a problem, for the following reason:

    Some people, following the Alma 32 formula, don’t experience any sensations consistent with what is promised — no “swelling motions,” either literal or figurative. What conclusions should that person draw from this result?

    I can count three:

    (1) The Church isn’t true.

    (2) The experiment isn’t being performed correctly — the “experimenter” is casting out the seed because of unbelief, is biased by a secret desire to continue acting contrary to how he would have to act if the premise being experimented upon is true, or isn’t searching, pondering or praying diligently enough.

    (3) The experiment isn’t being performed long enough. The experimenter shouldn’t get discouraged that he hasn’t gotten an answer; he should continue praying, pondering, etc. in the hope of getting an answer, which will come in the Lord’s own time.

    The problem is that a person in this situation has no way of knowing which of the three possibilities is the truth. Even a person who carefully examines his life and tries to purge himself of unbelief, the bias of sin, etc. will always have to consider the possibility that he hasn’t done so completely or sufficiently. Even if his personal righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, so to speak, he will always have to consider (because the Lord might require more of him than of others — “where much is given, much is expected” and all that) that those last few sinful aspects of his life he hasn’t succeeded in overcoming are keeping the channels of heaven blocked.

    Likewise, possibility #3 can never be ruled out completely. Human life is finite. Theoretically, a person could be kept waiting for an answer his entire life, and receive an answer only on his deathbed. The problem, as Daffy Duck told Bugs Bunny, is that you can only do this trick once. You only have one mortal life to devote to spiritual experimentation, and if you expend your whole life on one experiment, only to finally receive an answer that the thing you were trying to discover the truth of, was actually false, you’re hosed. If a person decided to try the Alma 32 approach on, say, Methodism, and didn’t get an answer, if he continued acting Methodist in the hope that a confirmation was just around the corner, he might go his whole life without ever finding the truth.

    If Alma 32 were truly a valid, replicable scientific experiment, it would contain a time frame, and an objective standard for determining whether the experiment was being done right. That is, a true experiment would have to be something like Elisha’s instruction to Naaman — “Wash in Jordan seven times” — that you either did or didn’t do. If Naaman had dipped in Jordan seven times and come out still shedding body parts, he could fairly have declared Elisha to be a false prophet. You can’t do that with Alma 32. The Church always has an “out” — it’s either your fault for doing the experiment wrong (not that we can tell you what you should have done), or you need to keep exercising faith and waiting.

    Comment # 23 by Thomas | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

24. The idea of a time frame being necessary for science is mistaken. Consider, for example, the search for various elemental particles or, given a more contemporary debate, empirical evidence for String theory. The idea that the must be a narrow time frame is simply mistaken.

    I’m not saying that a long period of time isn’t significant. Just that the idea science demands short times or prior specified times can’t really be lined up with the empirical realities of how particle searches go on.

    Comment # 24 by clarkgoble | Jan 5, 2007 | Reply

25. It seemed clear enough to me that Thomas was referring to an ‘experiment’, not ’science’ in the sense of ’scientific theory’ …

    Comment # 25 by Chino Blanco | Jan 6, 2007 | Reply

26. Chino has it. “Science” can of course involve hypothesis and speculation. Scientists then try to devise experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. With string theory and other exotic physics, we’re still trying to figure out what experiments would be useful, or possible.

    Alma 32 does present itself as an actual experiment — a means by which a specific premise can be proven or disproven. What I’m saying is that the means suggested, doesn’t effectively prove or disprove the premise. Thus, it’s not a proper experiment.

    Comment # 26 by Thomas | Jan 6, 2007 | Reply

27. Nice post Questions.

    It was the issue you discuss in your post above — the subjectivity of religious experience and the problems inherent in drawing wide-ranging factual (as opposed to emotional or spiritual) conclusions based on “feelings” — more than any other of my many “issues” (i.e. problems with church history, questions about God, questions about prophets, doubts re certain sins like homosexuality, doubts re the black and white nature of truth, etc.) that finally forced me a few years ago to overcome my fears and really begin examining what I thought I knew and believed.

    I think there is real merit in religious experiences (i.e. bunings in the bosom or whatever) that result from prayer or meditation or life experience, but I think we should be more open-minded about their interpretations and less-inclined to assume our conclusions also apply to others.

    Comment # 27 by Matt Thurston | Jan 6, 2007 | Reply

28. The point is that sometimes experiments take decades to arrive. How long was it from when quarks were theorized as part of the standard model to when the top quark was found?

    Comment # 28 by clarkgoble | Jan 6, 2007 | Reply

29. Ricercar:

    Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve located these lectures, and have started listening. I couldn’t find a site where I would be able to download an MP3, unfortunately, so have to just listen sitting at my computer, which is a bit tedious (as opposed to loading them up during a walk or drive).

    Matt:

    Your post is pretty much at the heart of what I was trying to address. Some of the other discussion, while interesting and worthwhile, has focused on various side issues, rather than the primary point I was trying to make (though perhaps not in the most precise way, hence the need to pursue some of those side areas). Kind of a ‘forest and trees’ thing.

    Also just finished “The Varieties of Scientific Experience” - Ann Druyen’s compilation of the Gifford Lectures given by her husband Carl Sagan. He addresses much of the same science/religion territory, although in a much more respectful, open-minded way than Harris or Dawkins ( but without pulling any punches or intellectual sloppiness). Worthwhile reading, for me anyway.

    Comment # 29 by Questions... | Jan 7, 2007 | Reply

30. Questions,

    It sounds like you and I are reading the same kinds of things these days. I recently read The End of Faith, a polemic to be sure, but many of his conclusions are sound. I’ve thumbed through Dawkins. Bought, but have not yet read Dennett and William James. I’ve always wanted to read Demon Haunted World by Sagan.

    Spiritual experiences of some kind seem to be nearly universal, though the quality, quantity, etc are quite variable. My interest in understanding the phenomenom better stems from the fact that these days my spiritual experiences, to say nothing of my conscience and understanding, seem to run counter to the experiences of most people in my tribe.

    I’ve enjoyed many of the comments here, though like Questions, I feel that many of them are not addressing the issue directly. I think there probably is no satisfactory answer.

    As for this “time frame” idea, I would imagine most religious theories or beliefs include such a caveat. Should we test them all? Futhermore, even if one comes to know or believe something after a given period of time says nothing about the efficacy of time frames or waiting patiently. Hundreds of other variables in addition to “waiting” also determine the eventual outcome… for example: desire and worthiness. One of my favorite blog posts is The Spinozit Mormon’s “On the Evidentiary Value of Spiritual Experiences”: http://spinozist.blogspot.com/2005/06/on-evidentiary-value-of-spiritual.html   He also references Alma 32 and says, “desire to believe, and nourishing the word with good works—are not so much the path to evidentiary enlightenment as a how-to manual for talking and behaving oneself into alignment with a community whose existence depends upon unverifiable assertions.”

    Comment # 30 by Matt Thurston | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

31. I’m getting to this whole conversation late, but let me add my two cents worth, having struggled with the concept of faith, and as a former bishop, trying to help others duplicate the experience of Alma 32, with varying results. I have also found that many of my non-member friends have had sincere experiences with their faiths, and are what I would consider to be more Christlike than some of the members I have known.

    Even though I understand the desire to apply the scientific process to either verify or reject a hypothesis, I don’t find it useful for me as a starting point for faith. If God exists, (which I believe), then he is other-worldly, and probably only known or experienced through “other-worldly” means. I can’t point to any specific time in my life where I had my conversion experience, but recall quite well many times the positive spiritual experiences that Alma describes. The very thought of trying to apply some sort of discipline or rational process to faith usually, for me, renders the experience fruitless. It’s not that I discount the scientific method, but my concept of God and his interactions with us has always seemed out of that realm completely.

    More often than not, the whole process of faith implies that one has to take a step in the darkness, not knowing where one’s foot might actually fall, to verify faith. To say that we know where our foot will fall, based on an anticipation of reducing faith to the strictures of our 5 senses, takes away the element of faith, and replaces it with some sense of knowledge. That knowledge might be that “I know this is true”, or it might be “I knew it wouldn’t work”. Both fit within the context of Alma 32.

    I guess that I am saying that faith is more of an art than a science, and one of it’s greatest pleasures is never knowing where the grace and joy of faith will befound. I have often been humbled by such simple acts as participating in the member program for cleaning the chapel, as I have while reading the scriptures, or sitting in a sacrament meeting. And I have also been disappointed in those same environments as well. But I have developed what may well be described as an artistic skill that allows me, from time to time, have the spiritual experiences that I need to sustain and expand my faith. Perhaps this is not what you need as individuals, but it has served me well.

    Comment # 31 by Kevinf | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

32. Well said, Kevinf. I think you’ve described the kind of faith and approach (cautious, humble) to spiritual experience that I am comfortable with. Like you, I’d agree that spiritual experiences lend themselves better to the interpretative tools of art than the forensic tools of science.

    That said, your approach (at least as far as I am able to glean from your response) would seem to work just as well for a person of any faith.

    Furthermore, if we were only asked to utilize faith and spiritual experience as a means of experiencing the grace and joy of such simple acts as participating in the member program for cleaning the chapel, or reading the scriptures, or being spiritually uplifted by a talk in sacrament meeting, I doubt even the most skeptical person would object. But such examples are hardly the limits or boundaries of faith required by Mormonism or the kinds of things for which we are asked to verify via the process outlined in Alma 32.

    I feel yearnings for faith and spirituality as much (I think) as my most faithful LDS brothers and sisters, but determining whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, whether the BOM is historically true, whether the LDS Church is the only true church, etc. by using the method outlined in Alma 32 is like trying to fix my car’s transmission with a teaspoon — the tool doesn’t seem to match the problem. And even if I were able to make such a leap I can’t help but wonder why such a leap is even necessary for my soul or my eternal progress. Does believing something unknowable to be true make me a better person, a better father, a better husband, a better Christian?

    Comment # 32 by Matt Thurston | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

33. Another thought: Even in the event that I do ever experience anything I could interpret as an A32/M10 confirmation (that’s “Alma 32/Moroni 10″), wouldn’t I also have to have some reason to believe that what I was experiencing — the “burning in the bosom” or similar sensation — would not be forthcoming in connection with another religious claim?

    Consider this: A Mormon who’s been seeking an A32 confirmation suddenly feels a flood of strong religious feelings come over him during a sacrament service. He interprets these feelings as evidence that the LDS Church is the one true church. Across town, a Catholic has similar feelings during Mass. Why should he not conclude that his is the one true church?

    The problem here is that it’s difficult to comprehend another person’s inner feelings or sensations. I can’t know for certain that when a Catholic describes religious sensations that sound similar to mine, his are lesser, greater, or inherently different. That is, it’s possible that when he speaks of sensing a peacefulness when he contemplates his faith, that peace may be dwarfed by the peace spoken to the mind of a Mormon — but how can I know? There’s not a “peace meter” we can hook up to both of our brains; the peace that passeth all understanding probably passeth all objective measurement, too. (Or maybe not — I’d be intrigued to see a study measure the brain activity of people of different faiths when they’re exposed to things that trigger religious responses.)

    Assume (as I do) that the Spirit is real — not just a function of brain chemistry — and that he really does testify of truth. What if both the Catholic and the Mormon who experience strong religious impressions truly are both being inspired by the Spirit? That might suggest that the Christian message is sufficiently powerful that it can burn through the clutter in each tradition, causing the Spirit to be felt even if the pure truth that triggers it is presented in company with fallible human ideas.

    Anyway, you probably see what my bishop is up against….

    Comment # 33 by Thomas | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

34. Matt,

    You’ve stated the problem well. For all my positive experiences, there is always a sense of doubt, and the fear that whatever I have done in the church, the better spots in the hereafter are likely to go to those who really do understand and live the charge to do “as ye have seen Me do”. The real test of faith for me is to really get outside of yourself, and do for others. It seems to come so naturally for some. I was always amazed at how quickly some folks agreed to do the real things that count, like taking in a rebellious teenager that could not get along with her parents, or who would jump in and volunteer to help someone at great expense of time, and often money, at the mere mention that someone needed a hand.

    I can’t say that I have known Christ personally, but I surely have met him through his many agents here. That is real faith

    So do I have any direct evidence of any of the items you mention? No. Do I have faith in all of them? Yes. And that faith comes through putting myself where, as some have called it, the most likely places to get blessings and spiritual experiences. Does that mean I sit through a lot of GD classes that leave me cold, or sit through testimony meetings that seem totally devoid of anything other than sheer sentimentality? How often do I go to the temple, and not get what so many people tell me is going on? But when it happens, it’s transcendent. So I have questions about polygamy, and about priesthood authority, and I have trouble with the practice of “blind obedience”. I wish I could go through an exercise like Alma 32, and get reliable results every time. It doesn’t happen. But it happens often enough to keep me coming back.

    Comment # 34 by Kevinf | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

35. Matt:

    Sounds like we’re definitely on the same wavelength. I just started reading Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell….Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” I read James “Variety of Religious Experience” several decades ago, but should re-read it now with fresh eyes.

    The last few posts, including those of Kevinf and Thomas, cut to the heart of the matter. Like Matt, I respect Kevinf’s humble sincerity, and realize that (at least at this point in time), spiritual studies may be closer to art than science. But the problem is that there are, and have been, equally humble and sincere individuals in a wide variety of religious traditions and eras, who have what are likely very similar spiritual experiences, but end up drawing equally unjustified conclusions concerning a wide variety of issues, prove proveable and non-proveable. Matt’s transmission and teaspoon analogy is quite applicable.

    Excerpting a couple of my comments above, to summarize this point:

    The logical fallacy is how people have spiritual experiences of various sorts, and end up drawing conclusions about various matters that are simply not justified by these experiences. The logic here is: “If I have experience X, then facts Y must be true” and this is where things go awry.

    The bottom line for me is that whatever “Truth” may be obtained through religious, spiritual, transcendental type experiences, can only be legitimately established through bringing the tools, logic, and approach of scientific inquiry into the process. Otherwise we are left with reliance on purely subjective and fallacious interpretations of these experiences, which will be filtered, biased and therefore inaccurate to varying degrees, by the language, culture, personal, upbringing and other unique aspects of the individuals having them.

    Comment # 35 by Questions... | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

36. Thomas,

    Good question. When I was younger, I was much more sure. As I get older, I find that I am much more respectful of other’s religious experiences, including the evangelicals that seem to disrespect us so much. I believe that any step anyone takes that leads them to lead a more charitable, Christlike life is likely to produce some of those same spiritual responses. But I also don’t have a Peace-O-Meter, or spiritual experience logger to tell me if my experience is stronger than someone else’s. I believe many times that they are much stronger sometimes for those outside our church.

    Interesting that I haven’t seen any references to the “Iron Rod” here. I actually have been looking for it most of my adult life, and have to keep referring to my own personal liahona. I suspect it’s out there, but maybe it’s only accessible if you are one of those that can truly see Alma 32 as a blueprint, and not a parable.

    That leads me to a separate topic for another day, which is that the straight and narrow path is steep, littered with fallen trees, broken boulders, confusing and often inaccurate road signs, with many easy and convenient offramps. Perhaps that might be a topic for a separate blog posting.

    Comment # 36 by Kevinf | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

37. Thomas (#33),

    You’ve correctly pointed out the impossiblity of measuring one person’s “burning” against another person’s “burning.” I guess my question would be why does it matter if the Catholic or Mormon person’s burning is more powerful? Does the degree of burning say more about the faith tradition or the person? Furthermore, such a question assumes the degree of burning is somehow related to truth. I know we’re taught otherwise, but I don’t see what one has to do with the other. To use your example of “a Mormon who’s been seeking an A32 confirmation suddenly feels a flood of strong religious feelings come over him during a sacrament service…” Why would such a flood of emotions be translated as his faith being somehow true?

    It seems a far more likely explanation that the flood of emotions, were they given a voice, would say this: “This feels good. This feels right. Sitting here with my fellow brothers and sisters in quiet contemplation is good for my soul and good for my community. It makes me feel close to my fellow man and close to God and/or the inifinite.” (Apologies for the rather inarticulate and obvious voice of my emotions.) Is that not enough? Does such a feeling not then translate to the kind of important things Kevinf describes in Comment #34? This idea of using feelings to confirm unknowable “truth” seems almost like a false idol subject to possibly dangerous abuse or misuse.

    Kevinf (#34),

    Yours is the faith of many a humble Mormon I know. (Oh that there were more.) It is faith like yours that keeps me tethered to the Church. I sometimes wonder if my doubts and concerns keep me from experiencing the real kind of service and love (and resultant spiritual experiences) you describe in #34. I vacillate between admonishing myself: “Just get over yourself and serve and love your fellow man,” and feeling pity for myself: “Hey, my feelings and beliefs and spiritual experiences matter too… you can’t just dismiss me as misguided or weak because they don’t line up with your feelings, beliefs, and experiences!”

    Comment # 37 by Matt Thurston | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

38. I have had many faith promoting, “burning bosom” experiences as an active member of the Church. I always attributed them to my membership and participation in the Church. Now, having detached myself from the Church I continue to have them. I realize that Church has little to do with emerging and evolving faith and belief. It has a great deal to do with how you pereceive and interpret your experiences.

    Comment # 38 by Parker | Jan 8, 2007 | Reply

39. Parker and Matt,

    Church attendance is not a prerequisite for having spiritual experiences, although many that I have had came as a result of being there. The two big things that church activity provide are 1) opportunities for service, and 2) the social atmosphere of others who believe and act based on similar values. Having said that, I recognize that as a democrat, I often find myself at odds with others who interpret church values and political values as being the same thing. My testimony informs my political values, but I am careful not to conflate the two as being equal.

    As to the service factor, for all the dread and drudgery involved in home teaching and the other so-called mundane activities associated with church service, they are just that, opportunities to serve our fellow beings. My personal feeling is that , yes, ordinances are important, but more important to our eventual eternal well being is how much we emulate the Savior by looking after “the least of these”, which often includes those who don’t really want to see us each month in those HT/VT visits, or the obnoxious teenager in the Sunday School class we are called to teach.

    Going to sacrament meeting is not the gate to the celestial kingdom, baptism is. Sacrament meeting, at it’s best, reminds us of those covenants we made, and spurs us to action in service. Serving in a community food bank, volunteering at a homeless shelter, donating to local charities, giving rides to the elderly widows to pick up their prescriptions, these are signs of faith, that in my mind, count more than just showing up to meetings.

    Comment # 39 by Kevinf | Jan 9, 2007 | Reply

Post a Comment