Doxastic control?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Knightmeister, I conducted this portion of the experiment, and I am now in a position to report on it. I had what seemed like quite a bit of dream activity. I am still confused as to what is supposed to bear relevancy to experimental outcome (regarding retainment or falsification of the God hypothesis), so I am just going to report on everything I remem ...[text shortened]... riving around at nighttime. I remember going up and down steep grades, but that's about it.

...remind me specifically what it was you were praying for. Can you remember the key words? Did you ask for some sign or did you pray for a memory to come to mind?

The first thing that strikes me is that it seems you did have some advanced dream activity more than normal , although this could be explained by you trying to remember your dreams more.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...remind me specifically what it was you were praying for. Can you remember the key words? Did you ask for some sign or did you pray for a memory to come to mind?

The first thing that strikes me is that it seems you did have some advanced dream activity more than normal , although this could be explained by you trying to remember your dreams more.

I uttered the following as per your procedural instruction:

"God if you are really there then give me some sense of your presence with me or cause my mind to remember a point in my life where I might have felt your presence."

Yes, I would say there did seem to be more dream activity than normal, or at least more than I usually recall. However, a couple things that might be relevant: I got a bit more sleep than normal that night, and also as you mention I had resolved to remember my dreams and document them directly upon waking up.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Offering a point of view to save:
When sharing I think what can happen is one of three things:
1. Planting a seed
2. watering a seed
3. Harvesting
Jesus spoke about it, we don't know where everyone is at and we
certainly don't know how they got where ever they are at when we
share, discuss, debate and so on. I don't worry about results, I try
not to ...[text shortened]... e debate or
discussion matter, before that odds are seeds were planted and
watered.
Kelly

Those three things you mention all seem to be working toward eliciting theism. Do you think those possible outcomes are exhaustive, or do you think witnessing could possibly be dissuasive and work in the opposite direction depending on the manner and content of the witnessing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I uttered the following as per your procedural instruction:

"God if you are really there then give me some sense of your presence with me or cause my mind to remember a point in my life where I might have felt your presence."

Yes, I would say there did seem to be more dream activity than normal, or at least more than I usually recall. However, a co ...[text shortened]... as you mention I had resolved to remember my dreams and document them directly upon waking up.

Ok , it's possible that the dream connected with your friend may have something in it but it's a bit vague. Are there actual memories connected with your friend?

The problem is that this is fishing around a bit. When you prayed did you use the exact same words as I suggested? What would be better would be for you to use your own words as this makes it more personal to you. Also when you prayed did you pray in a heartfelt way as opposed to an emotionless "going through the motions" way? Only you can answer this for yourself really as it between you and your own self awareness.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , it's possible that the dream connected with your friend may have something in it but it's a bit vague. Are there actual memories connected with your friend?

The problem is that this is fishing around a bit. When you prayed did you use the exact same words as I suggested? What would be better would be for you to use your own words as this makes Only you can answer this for yourself really as it between you and your own self awareness.

Are there actual memories connected with your friend?

Not quite sure what you mean. The person in the dream had the salient physical characteristics that I associate with this particular friend of mine -- he looked like him and had his mannerisms. Other than that, the dream had little or no resemblance to any actual memories I have of this friend. As I mentioned, the house and children in the dream aren't really his. And as far as I know, he doesn't play or for that matter have any interest in volleyball.

When you prayed did you use the exact same words as I suggested? What would be better would be for you to use your own words as this makes it more personal to you.

I used the exact words you instructed. I could try paraphrasing them in my own words.

Also when you prayed did you pray in a heartfelt way as opposed to an emotionless "going through the motions" way?

I'm not sure I understand. Could you describe what it means to be "heartfelt" in experimental dealings? Usually in my scientific experiments, my inner attitudes (e.g., whether I secretly have certain desires or expectations with respect to what outcomes obtain or whether I find the work to be tedious and boring or not, etc) do not really have any effect on my coming to an objective outcome. These are also cases in which such inner attitudes are not really in a position to exert influence over my ability to faithfully carry out the experimental procedures and interpretations. Sure, I may think, for example, that some of my scientific research for my thesis is boring, but even so I can still be careful to execute it properly. Sure, I may secretly desire a given experiment to have such and such outcome, but I can still be careful to be responsible and objective in how I interpret the results. For the most part, I think of these attitudes I may have as nonessential and extraneous to the actual science being done. I realize this experiment is somewhat different in that the evidence we are looking for may be of a personal nature and concern my internal states. Still, I am getting concerned about the objectivity, or lack thereof, of the actual experimental process you have in mind. This is getting me concerned on general issues of reliability, reproducibility, controllability, etc.

My other concern that is growing by the minute is that the whole thing seems ill-defined with respect to prediction and retainment/falsification conditions.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Are there actual memories connected with your friend?

Not quite sure what you mean. The person in the dream had the salient physical characteristics that I associate with this particular friend of mine -- he looked like him and had his mannerisms. Other than that, the dream had little or no resemblance to any actual memories I have of this fri ...[text shortened]... ing seems ill-defined with respect to prediction and retainment/falsification conditions.[/b]

How should I go about summoning "heartfeltness" in addressing an hypothetical posit? I can utter "God, if you're really there...etc." and sound heartfelt; I may even be able to convince others that I am heartfelt, but I am not heartfelt in this search. Then again, being heartfelt (like believing that P) typically isn't the sort of thing in my direct control. I am very curious about what the results of the search will be, and I am very attentive to what is going on internally and in my environment, but I don't think this type of sincerity is the same "heartfeltness" that KM is talking about. So, I'm a bit flummoxed by all this.

Originally posted by bbarr
How should I go about summoning "heartfeltness" in addressing an hypothetical posit? I can utter "God, if you're really there...etc." and sound heartfelt; I may even be able to convince others that I am heartfelt, but I am not heartfelt in this search. Then again, being heartfelt (like believing that P) typically isn't the sort of thing in my direct c ...[text shortened]... e same "heartfeltness" that KM is talking about. So, I'm a bit flummoxed by all this.

Therein lies the rub: your posit is only hypothetical. Seeking God is not a laboratory experiment which you are not required to be subjectively involved with. And looking for signs or mystical experiences is, frankly, a bit naive. Neither should anyone be dependent upon dreams as a guide. I respect your skeptical curiosity, but I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable with this whole thing myself. If you're truly serious about finding Christ, then STUDY THE BIBLE. Everyone who first picks up the Bible thinks it is pernicious and banal, because "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). My advice: drop the search for signs and revelatory dreams, and simply study the Bible in depth. You won't even have to study it in a "heartfelt" way. Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Therein lies the rub: your posit is only hypothetical. Seeking God is not a laboratory experiment which you are not required to be subjectively involved with. And looking for signs or mystical experiences is, frankly, a bit naive. Neither should anyone be dependent upon dreams as a guide. I respect your skeptical curiosity, but I'm feeling a bit uncom ...[text shortened]... on't even have to study it in a "heartfelt" way. Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Now that you mention it, this whole exercise does seem a bit naive doesn't it? Seriously, though, I doubt I could muster the motivation to study the Bible in depth without some good epistemic reasons to think that the Bible is accurate regarding spiritual or ethical matters. My own spiritual search, which largely centers around meditation, has yielded dividends without being informed by a theistic metaphysics. Further, I am already in possession of good epistemic reasons to doubt the commitments of Christian ethical theory. I think secular virtue ethics is, by and large, correct. So, how should I go about bootstrapping myself into being motivated to study the Bible in depth? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the central claim of this thread...

Originally posted by bbarr
Now that you mention it, this whole exercise does seem a bit naive doesn't it? Seriously, though, I doubt I could muster the motivation to study the Bible in depth without some good epistemic reasons to think that the Bible is accurate regarding spiritual or ethical matters. My own spiritual search, which largely centers around meditation, has yielded ...[text shortened]... he Bible in depth? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the central claim of this thread...

I'm curious how you would be able to doubt Christ's ethics without ever having studied the Bible. If you are referring to the popular misrepresentation of God as feckless arbiter of right and wrong and His followers as having possession of a selfish obeisance motivated simply by the fear of condemnation, then it is no wonder that you aren't the least bit interested in giving scripture the time of day. I don't blame you. I'm sure secular virtue ethics can produce great and noble men and women, if taken seriously (as any intelligent and idealistic person would). But the hidden Christ, the Christ which I and many others know and love, hardly needs to threaten his followers with hell-fire in order to procure their devotion. Christ is Truth, and all lovers of truth love Him (that is, once they recognize Him).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm curious how you would be able to doubt Christ's ethics without ever having studied the Bible. If you are referring to the popular misrepresentation of God as feckless arbiter of right and wrong and His followers as having possession of a selfish obeisance motivated simply by the fear of condemnation, then it is no wonder that you aren't the least bi ion. Christ is Truth, and all lovers of truth love Him (that is, once they recognize Him).

Yikes, I certainly don't construe the best versions of Christian ethics in that way, though this is consistent with the way in which some self-professed Christians (and many, many proselytizers) understand the ethics of their faith. I just don't see how God is relevant to how we should live, or be, or treat each other. I certainly don't see how God could, by fiat, imbue things with value or rightness. Neither do I think that facts about God's character determine anything about ethics (since for God's character to be non-trivially described as 'good', there must be God-independent facts about what counts as 'good'😉. Further, I certainly don't think that truly virtuous people are typically motivated to, say, act compassionately because of their beliefs about what God wants of us. Rather, they typically act compassionately because they realize that suffering is generally a bad thing. Anyway, God could be relevant to ethics if he created us in such a manner that certain ethical norms were appropriate to us. But if this is the case then the ultimate explanation for why certain ethical norms are appropriate to us will derive from considerations of our nature as humans (pace virtue ethics), and the claim that we were created by God will be tangential to project of explaining or rationally validating our ethical norms. I have no idea what it means to say that "Christ is truth". You can't actually be identifying the two, since even in the absence of Christ there would be ethical truths (as well as logical, mathematical and empirical truths).

NOTE: I never said I hadn't studied the Bible. I spent a year studying the Tanakh with Professor Scott Noegel, and have studied the New Testament as part of my undergraduate minor in Comparative Religion. This was six or seven years ago, though.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
But the hidden Christ, the Christ which I and many others know and love, hardly needs to threaten his followers with hell-fire in order to procure their devotion.

He may not need to, but does he? That is, do those who fail to believe in the hidden Christ suffer eternal torment? Does it not say in the Bible you have studied that Jesus shall cast non-believers into the lake of fire, somewhere around Matthew 25:41?

Originally posted by bbarr
Yikes, I certainly don't construe the best versions of Christian ethics in that way, though this is consistent with the way in which some self-professed Christians (and many, many proselytizers) understand the ethics of their faith. I just don't see how God is relevant to how we should live, or be, or treat each other. I certainly don't see how God co ...[text shortened]... rgraduate minor in Comparative Religion. This was six or seven years ago, though.

God certainly did create us in such a manner that ethical norms are appropriate to us. That morality can be extrapolated with equal precision as can logical, mathematical and empirical truths, is evidence enough that Nature itself pivots on a moral center. We above all living creatures are given minds that grasp the highest virtues of the golden rule, self-sacrifice, love, and charity, as well as the mathematical intricacies of circles, vector calculus, fluid dynamics, chaos theory, etc. Personally, I can think of no greater proof that God exists, and that He is moral and rational, than this: that there are ethical truths in Nature.

The Logos (The Divine Reason), which is Christ, is called "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" precisely because the world and everything in it was made by, through, and for Him. One may be able to live virtuously and rationally without positing a Creator, but that person may never arrive at the full knowledge of the Truth, i.e., the very source of the principles by which he or she lives. And since we only have one life to live, it is imperative to get the word out about Christ (as responsibly as possible).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
He may not need to, but does he? That is, do those who fail to believe in the hidden Christ suffer eternal torment? Does it not say in the Bible you have studied that Jesus shall cast non-believers into the lake of fire, somewhere around Matthew 25:41?

Indeed it does.

If God created us as moral creatures, then He Himself must be moral, and if He is moral, then He must also be our Judge. This is the logical inference which makes God relevant to secular ethics. As Paul points out in Romans, "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" (Rom 2:12-13).

God is a just judge, and does not judge people according to the knowledge of Christ which they don't have, but according to the knowledge of Christ which they do have. Why would God have a day of judgment if He were merely to cast everyone who doesn't believe in Christ into hell? Those who believe in, love and follow Christ will indeed be exempt from condemnation, but that fact does not preclude the possibility of those who lived righteous lives, without sufficient knowledge of Christ, also being pardoned.

Of course, explicitly rejecting Jesus Christ is always grounds for condemnation. But, since Christ is the Logos, the divine Reason, through Whom, by Whom, and for Whom the entire world was created, is this really any surprise? Free will is a heavy burden to bear.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
God certainly did create us in such a manner that ethical norms are appropriate to us. That morality can be extrapolated with equal precision as can logical, mathematical and empirical truths, is evidence enough that Nature itself pivots on a moral center. We above all living creatures are given minds that grasp the highest virtues of the golden rule, se ...[text shortened]... life to live, it is imperative to get the word out about Christ (as responsibly as possible).

What do you mean when you claim that morality "can be extrapolated with equal precision..."? Even if this is right, surely it shows something just about the structure of morality or the structure of human inference and does not entail that the natural world itself is somehow dependent on ethical norms. Though, again, since this latter claim makes so little sense to me I am probably misconstruing you here. I do not understand why you would think that the existence of ethical norms bears any evidential relation to the proposition that God exists. Since the existence of ethical norms is perfectly compatible with the truth of atheism, I need some sort of reason to think that the existence of ethical norms provides "proof" for the existence of God. I have never, in the entirety of my philosophical career, encountered one good argument for such an evidential connection.

I don't know what it even means to say that some agent is the source of ethical norms. Perhaps you just mean that Christ (as God) created humans with a nature such that certain norms were appropriate for us. If so, then the real source of our ethical norms is our nature, not Christ, so I wonder why knowledge of Christ is necessary for anything at all in regards to ethics. If you mean something more than this, that Christ somehow directly imbues certain ethical norms with truth or appropriateness, then I simply have no idea what you're talking about. I have never seen a good reason for thinking that any agent could create normative facts by mere fiat. But, anyway, since no God worthy of worship would punish the virtuous, and since being virtuous is unrelated to being religious, there is really no reason for you all to take "getting the word out" so seriously. What you should take seriously is the moral education of persons, with or without the religious decoration.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If God created us as moral creatures, then He Himself must be moral, and if He is moral, then He must also be our Judge.

But both of these inferences are fallacious. It is not even required for God to create moral creatures that He even have the concept 'moral', since our being moral could have been a byproduct of other properties God gave us. In general, it is not a precondition of my creating something with property P that I myself have property P, or even the concept 'P'. If I not only create something with property P, but do so with the intention of having P manifest in my creation, then I will need the concept 'P' but still do not need to possess P myself.

Further, it simply does not follow from the fact that an entity is moral that that entity must stand in any sort of relation of judgment to other entities. All that follows is that if such an entity were to judge others, it would do so well. It certainly does not follow from the fact that an entity is moral that we ought to submit to that entity's judgement.