Course: Psychology 459, Spring 2007, Generation 26

Course: Psychology 459, Spring 2007, Generation 26
Instructor: Dr. Leon James
Introduction to Theistic Psychology at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic/ch1.htm
My Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/459s2007nash/nash-home.htm
Class Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/classhome-g26.htm
Instructions for this Report: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/459-g26-weekly.htm

Final Stretch
by Gregory C. Nash
Report 5 For Section 1.5.1 to 1.7

I am answering Questions 11.1, 11.3, 11.8, 11.9 and 13.1, 13.3, 13.5, 13.9

Week 11 Readings: Section 1.5.1 to 1.6.2

Question 11.1

(a) Summarize Section 1.5.1 "Students Speak Out on Swedenborg."
(b) Contrast the ideas of students in the History of Psychology earlier classes vs. the ideas of students later in theistic psychology. What is the difference in attitude and content?
(c) Give your impressions and conclusions of how students are doing in studying and accepting theistic psychology.
(d) Relate your conclusions to your own study of theistic psychology thus far. How do you fit or relate?

My Answer to Question 11.1 (Section 1.5.1)

(a) Students Speak Out on Swedenborg

The section entitled, “Students Speak Out on Swedenborg,” is basically a collection of reports done by students in prior generations of the theistic psychology course. These reports consist of students’ opinions about Swedenborg and whether or not they think theistic psychology should be accepted as a science. There were 23 student comments in all and their opinions varied. A little more than half stated that theistic psychology should be accepted as a science and taught to students as part of the history of psychology at the University level. There were also those who thought theistic psychology too closely related to religion and therefore inappropriate as a science or subject for psychological consideration in an academic setting.

Those who support the idea mostly do so because they feel spirituality and revelation are real psychological phenomena of the mind and deserve to be studied the same as any other phenomena we encounter. Those who argue against the idea mostly do so because they feel that science and religion should be kept separate and theistic psychology is too closely related with religion since it deals with God and spirituality. They also argue that Swedenborg’s experiences cannot be repeated, proven, or measured and are therefore unscientific.

(b) Historical Differences

Looking back at previous generations, it seems as though they had a harder time accepting theistic psychology as science. It seems like students of the most recent generations of theistic psychology have a greater rational understanding of God and they are more able to adapt to studying God scientifically. It seems as though the earlier generations where more skeptical as a whole and were more stubborn in their ways. This could be due to several reasons.

One reason could be that over the years the course has evolved, and the professor has learned what is easy for students to accept and what is more difficult to grasp or may require more time and explanation to fully understand and accept. Perhaps students are becoming more liberal as the years pass and accept new ideas more readily and with less of a hold on traditional thought and rationality. There could be other reasons, but this is just simple conjecture on my part and I have little evidence to prove my claims.

(c) Impressions and Conclusions

It is difficult to guess how well students are truly accepting theistic psychology, because we only have their reports to go on. These reports are not necessarily the best indicator of whether they are being receptive to the new information, because they are writing these reports to receive a grade, and this makes them potentially biased. While some may write from the heart, it is difficult to determine, and they may just be writing what they think the professor wants to hear. However, these reports are a good indication of whether students understand theistic psychology and how much they are studying the content of the course.

After reading some of the reports from this semester and last, it seems as though students are doing a fair job of studying and understanding theistic psychology. The first few reports are usually filled with uncertainties and skepticism, but toward the end of the semester, the reports become more accepting and show true understanding of what theistic psychology is all about. The students are able to view theistic psychology from the positive bias in science and apply it to their everyday lives. Not all fully accept the notions imparted by Swedenborg and may not go on to study theistic psychology after the course is finished, but they at least can understand what he is trying to say.

(d) Personal Relation

Maybe I shouldn’t answer this question truthfully until I get my final grade, but honesty is a virtue and stupidity abounds in me. First, I have to admit that theistic psychology has grown on me and a lot of it makes sense. I can accept it as a possibility, but that is about as far as I can go. I have been writing from the positive bias and supporting theistic psychology in my reports so that I can get a good grade. This report is yet another example. My true feelings and analysis come from the negative bias in science and I don’t think that I can easily change that.

That being said, I think that I do a fair job of assuming the positive bias and discussing theistic psychology, but I don’t think I would do it if I didn’t have to. I don’t flatly deny Swedenborg, and I think that he deserves to be studied, but I don’t think that I’m ready to take the time to do so. Simply accepting Swedenborg’s writing as a possibility is not nearly enough motivation for me to continue studying theistic psychology after this course. I am sort of stuck in a catch-22. I don’t want to spend that much time and effort studying something unless I know it’s true, but I cannot know whether theistic psychology is true unless I spend that time and effort studying it.

Question 11.3

(a) Select a few concepts from Section 1.5.1.3 "Outline of Swedenborg's Spiritual Psychology." Make an outline of the entire argument.
(b) Which concepts are most interesting to you. Explain.
(c) Now present and explain the outline to a friend or two. Have a discussion about it.
(d) What observations can you make from this exchange?

My Answer to Question 11.3 (Section 1.5.1.3)

(a) Outline

1) Swedenborg’s background

i) Dates and Titles of Books

ii) Dual Life

iii) Conversations with angels

iv) Clairvoyant events

(a) Fire

(b) Receipts

2) Life after Death: Heaven

i) Married life

ii) Conjugial bliss and sexuality

iii) Quasi-omniscience of all knowledge

iv) Jeweled palaces

v) Instant food and clothing

vi) Education of children

3) Life after Death: Hell

i) Horrible appearance seen by those in heavenly light

ii) Obsessiveness and unwillingness to comprehend rational things

iii) Frantic desire to return to the natural world and possess the inhabitants there

4) Vertical Community

i) External social community

(a) In time-space on earth

(b) Horizontal community

1. Ethnicity

2. Culture

3. Religion

4. Society

ii) Internal vertical community

(a) In the afterlife of eternity

(b) People consociate and unite

1. Similar thoughts

2. Feelings,

3. Degree of similarity

5) Negative and Positive Bias in Science

i) Negative bias scientist

(a) Monist or materialist

ii) Positive bias scientist

(a) Substantive dualist

6) No Function Without Substance

i) Mind/body issue

ii) Human phenomena

(a) Awareness

(b) Imagination

(d) Uniqueness of the self

(e) Centrality of religious feelings

(f) Divine Providence

(g) Prophetic revelation

7) Swedenborg’s Reports as Scientific

i) Scientific criteria

(a) Rational system

(b) Reputation of Swedenborg

8) Swedenborg’s Scientific Psychology

i) Rational

ii) Dualistic

iii) Integrated

iv) Empirical

v) Experiential

vi) Experimental

vii) Behaviorist

viii) Functionalist

ix) Developmental

x) Psychobiological

xi) Revelatory

(b) Interesting Concepts

Anything about Swedenborg and his biographical background interests me. I find it disappointing that such an influential person can fly under the radar for so long. He offered a lot to the world of science and psychology, but has pretty much been ignored due to the dominant negative bias in modern science. To be able to walk around on Earth and cruise around in the mental world at the same time would be awesome. It was an incredible power and Swedenborg never seemed to abuse it. He was reluctant to even use his clairvoyant powers to prove his unearthly abilities. If I were him I’d be trying to prove myself to people left and right, but I guess this wasn’t God’s will.

The fact that Sacred Scripture holds hidden correspondential meaning is also very interesting. To think that books written centuries and continents apart can have the exact same underlying meaning is incredible to think about. Learning about the afterlife is also interesting and makes me want to lead a better life so that I can end up in the heavens of my mind and avoid the hells. It’s also interesting to think that our thoughts, emotions, and feelings are located in the afterlife of eternity and that we are dual citizens.

(c) Friendly Discussion

I discussed this outline with my friend while we were in the car driving to the mall. That way I would have a captive audience and he couldn’t ignore me as he had tried before. He doesn’t like thinking existentially, but he finally agreed as a favor to me and for the good of my educational experience. I also had to threaten not to give him a ride, but that fact is irrelevant.

(d) Personal Observations

My friend listened to all that I was saying, but did not necessarily understand it all and I couldn’t adequately explain the things on which he was confused or lost. He did especially become interested in the portion about conjugial bliss and sexuality, which shows where his mind dwells. It also shows that if the person you’re trying to explain these concepts to doesn’t really want to hear them or is not interested, it is going to be a waste of time. It wasn’t completely wasted however, because it gave me an opportunity to explain the concepts aloud and helped myself to better understand them. It also gave me an idea of where my own knowledge and rationality break down, giving me more answers to find in theistic psychology.

Question 11.8

(a) Discuss the "transmissive model" (or "transmission theory") of the mind by William James in Section 2.3. He was familiar with Swedenborg's Writings from his father, who wrote a book about Swedenborg's Writings.
(b) Do you see a connection between substantive dualism and the model of William James?

My Answer to Question 11.8 (Section 1.6.2)

(a) Transmissive Model

William James believed that there are two distinct perspectives in respect to the brain and mind. The first perspective, which agrees with theistic psychology in many aspects, is the transmissive model. This model is a product of dualism because it follows the premise that the brain is constructed out of physical matter, while the mind is constructed out of something entirely different and intangible.

In the transmissive model, the brain works merely as a transmitter and does not create the thoughts or feelings that the mind experiences. The brain is created of physical matter and the mind is transmitted through it. The physical body is only a temporary construct and cannot function without the underlying mind. When the brain and body die, the mind is able to continue working, because it is separate from the physical body and exists immortally in the mental world of eternity. When dualism is accepted as valid, scientific, and rational, then so too is immortality. It is easier to understand the transmissive model when it is contrasted with the productive model.

William James’ other perspective dealing with the brain and mind is called the productive model. In this model, the physical brain actually creates the thoughts that people experience in their minds. Therefore, when the person’s physical body dies, so too do the person’s thoughts and mind die and cease to exist. The productive model is affiliated with materialism, reductionism, and monism since it describes the mind as being constructed of matter in time and space. The mind and consciousness are simply epiphenomenona created by electrical synapses in the physical brain. This is the perspective that most scientists, psychologists, and people in the negative bias tend to accept. William James thought both the transmissive and productive models equally logical and valid despite the fact that they contradict one another.

(b) Substantive Connection

William James’ transmissive model closely parallels the ideas explained by Swedenborg in theistic psychology. James explains that we are not simply experiencing epiphenomenona created by electrical impulses in the physical brain. The mind and body are separate entities created from different substances. In theistic psychology, we learn about substantive dualism, which follows the same line of thinking. In theistic psychology the brain is made of physical matter, while the mind is made of spiritual substances on a different plane of existence.

The transmissive model cannot make sense without the presence of God, who must power our mental and physical bodies born of underlying spiritual substances, as is the case in substantive dualism. In both theistic psychology and the transmissive model, the human mind and spirit are immortal and continue to exist after the death of the physical body.

Question 11.9

(a) Discuss your perceptions of how other students in this class (G26) are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias in science perspective.
(b) Read some of their reports. Do the reports show the same thing as the class discussions?
(c) How do you stand relative to others?

My Answer to Question 11.9

(a) Intellectual Adjustment

It is difficult to judge how well students are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias in science, because we only have their written and oral reports to go on. These reports are not necessarily the best indicator of how well they are adjusting to this new way of thinking. As I mentioned before, these reports are being written and presented for a grade. This means that students may not be adjusting their way of thinking, but simply masking it temporarily while in class. While some may actually prefer the positive bias and write from the heart, it is difficult to determine, and they may just be giving the professor what he wants. However, these reports are a good indication of whether students are able to at least adopt the positive bias temporarily and understand theistic psychology.

We all began in the negative bias without even knowing it. We took the reports of Swedenborg with skepticism and questioned the source of this new knowledge, some rejecting it outright and calling it ridiculous, rolling their eyes, and giggling to themselves derisively. I think that the students have all proven their ability to think from the positive bias as they have not dropped out of the class or gone crazy trying to rationalize theistic psychology in the negative bias. However, this doesn’t mean they have truly adjusted their viewpoint. The members of the class have become more accepting as they realize that theistic psychology is not religiously based and have discovered it to be rational and scientific.

It is readily apparent that people have been spending time reading, studying, and discussing theistic psychology with others. Of course, they could just be making it up, but I like to trust people are above that. The fact that the reading is repetitive constantly reminds us of what we should know and helps create a firm foundation from which many other truths may branch out. The more we hear a certain concept in slightly different ways, the more the concept starts to make sense and grow on us.

(b) Classroom Correspondence

While the written reports are far more in depth and contain more technical details than the oral reports, they seem to echo one another in essence. The written reports sometimes contain more honesty and skepticism that can be read between the lines, but for the most part both oral and written reports highly favor theistic psychology and the positive bias in science. The reason for the small disparity may be that it is easier to be honest when typing on a computer than talking to the class and in front of the professor where we, as students, naturally aim to please. We also want to show that we understand the content of the course, whether we agree or not.

While the written and oral reports seem to favor theistic psychology and all of the content of the course, discussion is another matter. Some are afraid to ask stupid questions or questions that have already been asked repeatedly and do not present a problem, but some simply either don’t listen or don’t care enough to remember. Nobody wants to admit that they haven’t been studying or reading the lecture notes as closely as possible. The discussion questions after the report have often contained questions meant to challenge the rationality and consistency of theistic psychology, and the fact that some questions are asked repeatedly shows that some people are not accepting the answer as truth, whether they say they do in the reports or not.

It is difficult for us to truly adjust to the positive bias in science, as all of our education thus far has been in the negative bias. It is always difficult to change a person’s beliefs, but when grades are involved, people seem to agree with whatever a professor has to say. Whether or not they truly agree with the positive bias in science is only known by the person writing the reports.

(c) Relative Standing

I have definitely made improvements from the beginning of the course when I refused to consider theistic psychology from the positive bias at all. Now I am able to adopt this perspective at least temporarily, and better understand the concepts of theistic psychology. However, my mind has not fully adjusted and accepted the positive bias. I’m a very stubborn person. While I can pretend to see things from the positive bias, the negative bias is constantly creeping at the back of my mind and distorting my understanding. I have some work to do if I intend to truly adjust to the positive bias and further study theistic psychology.

Week 13 Readings: Section 1.6.3 to 1.7

Question 13.1

(a) List between 3 and 5 criteria that theistic psychology should have if it is going to make it as a science in the future.
(b) Briefly explain each.
(c) Then give your assessment as to how theistic psychology as you know it, stacks up against these criteria.

My Answer to Question 13.1 (Section 1.6.3)

(a) Scientific Criteria

1) Organicity

2) Objective Reality

3) Operational Definition

4) Empiricism

5) Usefulness

(b) Brief Explanation

1) Organicity is the extent to which a theory is organically based and biologically grounded. This means that in order to be scientific, a theory must have some connection to the anatomical structures of the human body. Organicity is the principle which states that something cannot function without some sort of structure, medium, or substance. Therefore, even mental operations must be biologically or anatomically based in order to be studied scientifically.

2) Objective reality means that objective observation is required for a theory to be scientific. We must be able to view a phenomenon without bias or subjectivity and others need to be able to verify these observations. There has to be a clear factual basis to the subject in question or it can be relegated as subjective opinion and ignored.

3) Operational Definitions are clearly defined factors of a theory that can be concretely measured. When experiments are performed, the scientist must be able to analyze and measure the dependent variable while keeping various known independent variables constant. This must be done by a concretely defined structure that we use as a measurement tool.

4) Empiricism is closely related to objective reality. Empiricism requires anything scientific to be capable of being experienced and replicated by others. Every step of the explanation should be understood and verified by every individual’s personal experience or self-witnessing.

5) Usefulness is the function of science that makes it applicable to all people and beneficial to both individuals and society. It must have some practical application by which improvement can be made, or it is considered trivial, irrelevant, and unscientific.

(c) Scientific Assessment

1) Theistic psychology is inherently a biological science, due to the concept of substantive dualism. It describes a mental anatomy that corresponds to our physical anatomy and constitutes spiritual psychobiology. The neuronal networks of the brain and their patterns of firing are governed by the laws of correspondences. This means that the brain activity observed in non-theistic psychology is merely a reflection of the mental neurons and their operation in the mental world. Therefore, theistic psychology is actually more accurately organically based than non-theistic psychology. The spiritual physiology of mental organs is primary while the natural physiology of the brain is secondary or reactive to it by the laws of correspondence.

2) Theistic psychology is based on objective reality. Swedenborg's reports present highly objective facts and observations. All those who were present in the spirit world where Swedenborg was able to travel also saw the same things he saw. These events were objective and included accounts of things people said, things that appeared in the surroundings, or what a group of debaters were talking about. Swedenborg had assistants in the mental world who also observed what he observed and experienced. Everyone will have a chance to verify these things when they die and become conscious in the mental world as well.

3) Theistic psychology contains operational definitions. Over and over again Swedenborg presents the observations he made over a 27 year period concerning things like how long it takes between death of the physical body and resuscitation or regaining of consciousness in the spiritual world. He also described the attendant conditions to the resuscitation process, who is present, what role they play, what are people's reactions when they wake up, what they take from here to there in terms of knowledge and attitude, and many other things described in great detail and precision. He defined these factors very accurately before using them n his experiments.

4) Theistic psychology is empirical. Swedenborg’s account is actually intended to be understood and verified by every person's own experience or self-witnessing observations. Many other psychological theories tend to exclude self-awareness as objective, but when it comes to mental phenomena, it is the individual who can most accurately and objectively describe their own feelings, affections, motives, and thoughts. These phenomena are unavailable to psychologists, and therefore they cannot tell a person what they are thinking objectively.

5) Theistic psychology is extremely useful. Whereas non-theistic psychology can only describe what is happening in the world around us, theistic psychology is able to explain what, why, and how these things are happening universally. It also offers relief from existential anxiety, practical understanding of the events around us, the ability to distinguish true from false regarding the explanations and concepts people propose, the ability to understand Sacred Scripture in both the literal and correspondential modes, the ability to live a good life and prepare for our life of immortality in eternity, the ability to help others more effectively, and the ability to form a functional and deeper marriage.

Question 13.3

(a) What is the organic basis of human thoughts, emotions, and feelings?
(b) Contrast this with the negative bias psychology which "reduces" thoughts and feelings to electricity and chemistry in the neurons of the brain.
(c) What is your view on this controversy?

My Answer to Question 13.3 (Section 1.6.4)

(a) Organic Basis

Substantive dualism is the theory that there are two planes of existence, a physical world and a mental world. When we are born, we enter into both and live in them simultaneously until we die and leave the physical realm. The physical or natural world is composed of matter in time and space, while the mental or spiritual world is composed of spiritual substances outside of time and space in eternity. Just as there are organs in our physical body that govern the functions of our natural existence, there are organs in our mental bodies that govern the functions of our mind, such as feelings, thoughts, and emotions.

A person’s physical anatomy is related to mental anatomy through the laws of correspondences. The heart and circulatory system of the physical body correspond to the affective organ of the mental body, which regulates a person’s feelings, motivations, impulses, tendencies, affections, and loves. The lungs and respiratory system of the physical body correspond to the cognitive organ of the mental body, which regulates a person’s thoughts, ideas, concepts, images, and reasoning. The brain and neural network of the physical body correspond to the sensorimotor organ of the mental body, which regulates a person’s sensations, focus of attention, motor determinations, and behavioral sets.

Many scientists designate thoughts, emotions, and feelings as simple products of electrochemical activity in the physical brain. However, in the positive bias of science and in theistic psychology, it is known that these phenomena are a result of functioning mental organs powered by the spiritual substances of Good and Truth that radiate from God and the Spiritual Sun.

(b) Reductionism

Scientists who operate in the negative bias will not accept the truth of anything that cannot be readily observed in this lifetime. Therefore, they must attempt to explain the human experiences of emotion and cognition in terms of chemistry and neurons firing in the brain. This is called reductionism. These incredible spiritual phenomena are reduced to cognitive illusions and a combination of electrochemical stimulation and sensory input. They claim that our conscious existence is merely an epiphenomenona, a side effect, or an illusory experience created by the physical brain.

This contradicts Swedenborg’s observations of the mental world and the basis upon which theistic psychology is based. The correspondential truths extracted from Sacred Scripture show that human beings are more than just physical matter and chemical synapses. Our minds and spirits are very real and most people can readily accept this as truth, as their own feelings and thoughts are what they are most familiar with. It is difficult to believe that our consciousness is simply a farce.

There is an innate understanding and longing in all of us that there is more to life than what the scientists in the negative bias claim. Our thoughts and feelings are not of this natural world and that is why scientists in the negative bias have a hard time studying them. Thoughts and feelings are in the spirit world and have a spiritual organic basis. To understand this, one must first adopt the positive bias in science and study the evidence for themselves.

(c) Personal View

I always found it difficult to believe that my consciousness is simply a side effect of electrochemical occurrences in the brain. Not only is it deeply depressing, but it also does not fit right with my natural instincts. I know from my own experiences and feelings that my consciousness is more than a simple epiphenomenona. They are very real to me. This is a major weakness in the negative bias in science. There is no purpose to living if we are simply a bundle of walking chemicals and we cease to exist when our physical body dies. Theistic psychology gives me hope and purpose to go on living a good life.

Question 13.5

(a) How do you react to the idea in Section 1.6.8 that "Sacred Scripture Is the Source of Scientific Revelations"?
(b) Explain the importance of the distinction between the literal sense of Sacred Scripture (religion) and its correspondential sense (theistic psychology).

My Answer to Question 13.5 (Section 1.6.8)

(a) Scientific Revelations

My reaction to the statement that “Sacred Scripture is the source of scientific revelations,” was first one of harsh skepticism, then mild surprise, then practical awareness, then serene contentment. In the negative bias I was skeptical, thinking “How could anything in Sacred Scripture be scientific, when it’s all about miracles, prophets, religious beliefs, and themes of morality?” Then I got some sense knocked into me by some low grades on my negatively biased and what I had thought of as rational reports.

Reluctantly putting the negative bias aside and adopting the positive bias, my new reaction was one of surprise. I found it intriguing that God would give us scientific knowledge through people and disguise it as religious, cultural doctrine. I was interested to know what these correspondences were and how they could be extracted from such enigmatic biblical stories and language.

Upon further study, my surprise and interest turned to a practical awareness and understanding. Of course God would want us to know all we could about Him and the afterlife of eternity and these things must have some sort of scientific basis if they exist. Theistic psychology studies this scientific basis that religion completely ignores. It makes sense then that He would have to present each of us with this knowledge in terms that we can understand. Thus, He works through other human beings in a cultural setting. We must then put the literal, cultural aspects aside and focus on the correspondential, universal sense of Sacred Scripture to uncover scientific revelation.

By reading the correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture, we are able to discover many important, scientific truths about the universe. We can learn of the nature of the universe and even our own psychological processes. We can also find out about creation, how the universe is shaped, what the spiritual world is made of, and the underlying substance of all physical matter. We also gain scientific knowledge of God and his motives. Finally, we are enlightened about relationships with the opposite sex and given a framework that presents us with the potential to create a fulfilling relationship and marriage.

My final reaction was one of contentment and comfort. It is nice to know that we are not stuck here on Earth without any guidelines on how we should live our lives, and we have the knowledge on how we should act so that we can be happy in eternity. I like thinking that there is a God who loves us and wants us to grow by overcoming temptations and living moral, heavenly lives. Being presented with the scientific revelation of correspondence that make rational sense makes it all the more comforting and puts my mind at ease.

(b) Important Distinction

The distinction between the literal sense and correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture is a crucial aspect of Theistic Psychology and our lives in general. Depending on which sense of Sacred Scripture we read, we receive very different messages. While reading the literal sense of Sacred Scripture is better than nothing and can often lead to heavenly lives if properly followed with good intentions, it does not give us the full picture. If Sacred Scripture is read literally or religiously, then the reader is getting a very specific and cultural account of the messages God wants us to hear.

The literal messages do not apply to all people of the world, sometimes create racism and hatred, and often become contradictory and confusing. These religions based on fundamentalism, or the act of following the literal sense of Sacred Scripture, are almost always sectarian, intolerant, violent, irrational, and unscientific. An example is the religion of Islam. The Sunni and Shiite Muslims each base their beliefs on the word of the Koran, yet they have opposing interpretations of the same text. These misinterpretations and incomplete literal meanings of Sacred Scripture cause horrific violence between the two sects and lead to numerous feuds and killings. Sacred Scripture is a great tool for good, but when used incorrectly, it can be a great tool for evil as well

On the other hand, the correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture is timeless and universal. It is not restricted to local geography or cultural groups. The message applies to all the people in all the worlds of the universe. It tells us the true meaning and purpose of existence and the truth about God and the afterlife in scientific detail. Sacred Scripture in the correspondential sense can be used as a source of facts, knowledge, and principles about the spiritual world of eternity and the afterlife. In its correspondential sense, it is a set of universal and culture-free guidelines for life in our physical existence. It’s a tool for developing Rational Spirituality and becoming closer to God while on Earth by applying its deeper meaning of heavenly principles to our daily willing and thinking.

Through reading, understanding, and enacting Sacred Scripture we are able to form Natural, Spiritual, and Celestial conjunction with God through spiritual-natural thinking about its contents. This crucial conjunction with God allows us to reach our supreme human potential. Without the correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture, the human race would be lost in the world with no purpose. We would not know heavenly form hellish traits, good from evil, or what is true and false. Humanity would live solely to receive pleasure and look out for their own private interests. We would have no knowledge of God or what happens when we die. We would be like ants in an ant farm being watched by a distant, indifferent God.

Question 13.9

(a) Why is it important for God to talk to or communicate with human beings?
(b) What does God intend to talk to us about? Why?
(c) How does God talk to us or communicate with us?
(d) Is there anything relevant you'd like to say about your relationship to your conscience and to Sacred Scripture?

My Answer to Question 13.9 (Section 1.6.8)

(a) Divine Communication

God gave Mankind the ability for rational spirituality in order for Him to conjoin and communicate with people on Earth in their rational minds. Rational spirituality is the process of becoming consciously closer to God in our daily lives here on Earth and is essential to our growth as human beings. Rational spirituality consists of two methods to receive Divine Speech from God including listening to our conscience and reading the correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture. Full, celestial or interior conjunction with God through these two methods is our ultimate goal both here on Earth and in the afterlife. Therefore, it is very important for us to make use of these gifts given to us by God. This conjunction with God offers greater intelligence, inventiveness, skillfulness, love, happiness, and zest for life.

It is important for God communicate with human beings because we require direction on how to live heavenly lives, how to stop doing evil to each other, and how to be prepared for the afterlife in eternity. God communicates with us because He is our loving creator and He wants to guide us in making the right decisions here on Earth, so that we can dwell with Him in the heavens of our minds. If we had no guidance on how to live our lives, then all of our inherent hellish traits would build upon themselves until we are bogged down in the hells of our minds, from whence return is difficult.

(b) Conversational Content

God speaks to us of His own nature and the nature of the mental world. He gives us the guidelines we need to live as heavenly as possible in our Earthly physical lives, so that we can be resuscitated in the heavens of our eternal minds. Our mental heavens or hells are a direct reflection of how we have lived our lives on the physical plane, so living heavenly in our physical lives is essential to our happiness in the mental world. It is therefore important that we know what we are in for and are prepared for this afterlife. God communicates with us through our conscience and Sacred Scripture so that when we die, we are not totally surprised and unprepared for what happens to us next.

God gave us Sacred Scripture to function as a weapon in spiritual combat against temptations of evil. Our purpose on Earth is to reform our inherently evil and selfish characters and prepare ourselves for life in eternity. In order to grow and prosper as individuals in eternity, we must be tested by God to undergo true character reformation. We must face these temptations of evil in spiritual combat to defeat and overcome them, proving our worth. Sacred Scripture is filled with knowledge that prepares us for these confrontations that God provides when we are ready. Without Sacred Scripture, we would be unprepared for this battle and God in his mercy would not tempt us beyond our limits of spiritual understanding. We could not be tested and as a consequence, we would not grow or better ourselves

(c) Conversational Methods

The first method of conjunction or communication with God is listening to the conscience. The conscience is an organ in the cognitive and affective portions of the natural-rational mind that allows us to monitor what is going through our sensuous minds. When the sensuous mind is tempted to violate good and truth, the higher natural-spiritual mind is able to recognize the danger and warn us rationally through affective and cognitive reactions. We are then able to heed this warning and further conjoin with God or continue to perform the action or thought of corruption and become further adjunct to God.

The second method of conjunction or communication with God is reading Sacred Scripture. However, it is not sufficient to merely read the words. A person must actively study the deeper, correspondential sense and meaning of the words. If a person studies Sacred Scripture for the purpose of applying the deeper truths to their daily lives, they are coming into direct contact with God and conjoining with Him. God opens the person’s mind and pours in good and truth as they begin to comprehend the underlying Divine Speech in Sacred Scripture.

God does not speak to people in their minds or appear physically before us in these times because it would cause our brains to suffer a meltdown. Our minds are not yet prepared to receive that level of Divine Speech or strong enough to perceive God on this Earth. If we did survive the conversation or dialogue with God, we might think we were just going crazy and not accept the conference as reality. If we told others, they would institutionalize us on claims of psychosis or schizophrenia, because it is not considered normal to hear voices in our heads. Today’s society and field of science runs under the negative bias and would not be very receptive to claims of Divine Intervention.

(d) Personal Relation

I have experienced both methods of conjunction or communication with God but never found it readily apparent that God had anything to do with either. Being raised as a Mormon with their strict protocols, my conscience is ever overactive. If I am tempted to do anything that I’ve been taught is wrong, I find myself quickly rejecting the temptation or deeply thinking over the consequences as a result of my potent conscience. While I fully practiced Mormonism, I was a regular saint and did everything I was supposed to, following the admonitions of my conscience closely, but still never felt any deeper connection to God. I also found myself reading the Bible daily, but never felt anything more than tired eyes. Perhaps I was not following my conscience or reading scripture for the right reasons, but no apparent sort of conjunction with God ever seemed to occur. God was speaking to me through my conscience and Sacred Scripture, and I didn’t even know it.