Mozart Rules!

Might I commend Rick, for he is a worthy and formidable opponent as well as gifted in prose. I have learned much about how I could rethink my strategies. I hope I have not been offensive to anyone as this was purely for the sport of debate. If anyone wishes to bring up religous concerns in the future I am game, and I will make better efforts to be more concise and brief in my responses.

And for Rick.....

1. Indeed, ignoring reliable scholarly knowledge, in lieu of nebulous feelings can be foolish. But you may recall that in my original statement I proposed that spiritual feelings could be earnestly sought "where mortal methods fall short".
2. In a world where we encounter many partial truths, it would be desireable to determine which truths will remain true, even in light of absolute truth. Right?

And now to attempt to wrap things up on the subject of feelings. Having encountered much evidence both discrediting and supporting the LDS religion, it seems there is an ongoing debate amongst intelligent scholarly researchers, who are more learned than I. However, like many other issues in this world, it seems the intellectual means are coming up short in both directions in the area of Mormonism, and religion in general. In otherwords, niether perspective can absolutely prove truthfulness or falseness of the doctrine through intellectual methods.

In more trivial aspects of life we can usually be satisfied with information that comes up a little short, and just make intellectual conclusions that have the "best bet" of being accurate. However in areas that we could consider most critical for our welfare are the areas where efforts in spiritual guidance are considered by some to be useful, in conjunction with open minded consideration for the evidences around us.

As for how we enterpret our feelings, it has been evident that feelings can be even more persuasive than witnessing indisputable and inexplicable miracles (which amazingly people will deny anti-Galileo style). So I will shift our focus to the relevance of feelings rather than any further miraculous accounts.

I shall present an analogy which I think we can more easily relate to. Some of us have been profoundly moved at times while listening to Mozart. (Rick, remember 25th symphony on vinyl?). This emotional experience would cause us to conclude that what we are listening to is something good. This happens for no explainable reason, since most of us have not been heavily indoctrinated to appreciate Mozart. We are not being mindlessly obedient just because we desire to continue to listen to Mozart. We have no social pressure or psychological need to believe that Mozart is good. It just plain feels that way. Why?

We would categorize the goosebumps and sweep of emotion we get from Mozart quite differently from other pyschic pleasures, such as say...warm fuzzies, or adrenaline rushes. Likewise we can have profoundly uspetting and disturbing feelings when reacting to such things as extreme violence (shell-shock) or when bad things happen to little children. We would categorize these visceral feelings differently than just having a hunch or opinion that something is wrong.

So go put on Mozart's 25th in G minor, turn it up, and just think about it for a minute.

The question remains; how do we properly categorize our own emotional experiences? I guess when we encounter an emotion, it's our individual responsibility to recognize what those feelings mean and where they are coming from. Then spiritual believers just have to come to terms with what they feel, and not be ashamed for occasionaly succumbing to intense sensations of divine enlightenment, even in the face of logical improbabilities and the philosophies of men.

Meanwhile, some people respond to Mozart and some don't, and that's the way it is.