It is simple.
The (usually inchoate) epistemology implicit in the notion of a private inner witness from the Holy Ghost just can't be made to work.
Knowledge has to make reference to publically available evidence and norms of rationality--at least in principle. You have to have good reason to say you know something.
It is no wonder that contradictions arise between different people's revelations. The number of religions and diverse metaphysical beliefes that arise because some body somewhere had a kind of inner mystical experience is huge.
Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge.
Thus we do have some good reasons to deny this notion of personal revelation as it is normally concieved.
In some sense then, what we know is that it doesn't work.
It is amazing that people just can't apply this lesson to their own relgion.
I appreciate you demonstrating that some secularists can be as narrow-minded, fundamentalist, and dogmatic as some religionists.
It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test. From what I can tell, the tendency in this regard seems to correspond increasingly with the size of one's ego. ;)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Gotta love how Wade thinks he can dismiss Tarski's level-headed, clear-eyed scientific analysis of personal revelation by projecting his own narrow approach back on Tarski.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.