Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

And the opprobrium is rightly Nietzsche's, even though he did not foresee Nazism specifically, following his philosophy out to its logical and conceptual conclusions directly implies Nazism, but no more than it also implies Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Fascism, non-ideological ethnic cleansing of any kind based in a relativistic value philosophy, or the Manson Family. Idi Amin was a much a Nietzschen immoralist as Ho Chi Minh, although he needed no ideology upon which to erect his barbarities. What Nietzsche did in reevaluating all values was take man to the precipice of nihilism. Looking into that abyss, Nietzsche thought he could cross over that abyss into the "will to power." The will to power need not be ideological, even though certain philosophies both require and intensify that concept.
As the great grandfather of later postmodern nihilism (especially in its pop cultural manifestations), Nietzsche stands as one of the great dismantlers of Western civilization and the classical liberal project. This doesn't by any means mean that all manifestations of his ideas lead to or are overtly violent. Far from it. Hugh Hefner is just as much a solid Nietzschen as his philosophical mentor Alfred Kinsey, and the sexual revolution and its "situational" morality an object lesson in the consequences of taking Nietzsche seriously. More darkly, however, the intersection between someone like Marcuse and Mustafa Mond is not at all clear.

Certainly Neitzsche's philosophy is ambguous- no one denies that, and I mentioned it in my first post.

Nietzsche the man was kind and sensitive and in fact suffered a major breakdown upon seeing a man beating a horse.

It is as pointless to debate the distortions people have used his philosophy for as it is to debate someone who says that Mountain Meadows was the direct result of Mormon theology.

volgadon · July 23, 2012

On the subject of morality, has anyone read Somerset Maugham's "Footprints in the Jungle"?

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

This is Robert Solomon, my professor from UCLA who taught me Nietzsche. There are many videos. The important thing to remember is what Nietzsche was attacking was what we call "sectarian Christianity".

He was actually a humanist who affirmed above all, the importance of life.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x94n4h_nietzsche-on-nihilism-and-death-of_webcam

Bill Hamblin · July 23, 2012

MfBukoswski:
But scientifically, what is "accountability"? Why are certain people/things held accountable and others not? Why is accountability the criterion? And how would one determine scientifically that accountability SHOULD be the criterion?
Kerry:
Easy, if you read them you would understand. Scientists who do not believe in God whatsoever, still believe in being GOOD and HONEST and LOVING. Because of basic interactions with others over the course of thousands of years human beings have learned how to be good and do what is right because it makes others happy, feel good, and have pleasant lives. Morality is easily learned. We KNOW it is fundamentally immoral to torture a helpless 8 month old baby. There is no need to ask if that comes from God or not, it just IS wrong. Giving others pain deliberately, especially the innocent is simply common sense moral wrong. This is what the scientists have noted that I have read. It is rather simple. Morality does not come from God, it comes from human societal discourse and interactions with everyone.

Bad choice of examples indeed. Killing enemy babies was standard military practice in many societies, since they had no value as slaves. And we must remember that infanticide was widely practiced by most ancient societies until replaced by modern abortion, not to mention partial birth abortion. Try telling modern abortionists that it is wrong to inflict pain on the innocent. How many babies have been left to starve to death in world history? Hundreds of millions. Remember in times of famine the weakest always die first. And selling your own children into slavery or servitude was commonplace until a century ago.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · July 23, 2012

Thanks for saying what I would have said, bukowski. I really don't get the hating on humanists and materialists on display in this thread, just like I don't get the hating on religion. If all spirit is matter and God is an exalted man, then Mormons are hardcore materialist humanists, just like we're hardcore theists. The fundamental point is that there is no contradiction between the two in our theology, which reframes a whole heck of a lot of the debate between "science" and "religion". The problem with appropriating traditional secular critiques of post-Apostasy Christianity is that most of the criticisms don't apply to Mormonism, and indeed support an LDS view; the problem with appropriating traditional critiques of humanism and "materialism" (as if they are bad things) is that they too backfire from a Mormon view. That's why I think it really is a Restoration; it so elegantly solves so very many problems.

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

I would not be a Mormon today if it were not for Robert C Solomon. See video 3.

This is as I see it the basis for a philosophical understanding of religious experience.

ShawFanX · July 23, 2012

Certainly Neitzsche's philosophy is ambguous- no one denies that, and I mentioned it in my first post.
Nietzsche the man was kind and sensitive and in fact suffered a major breakdown upon seeing a man beating a horse.
It is as pointless to debate the distortions people have used his philosophy for as it is to debate someone who says that Mountain Meadows was the direct result of Mormon theology.

We'll have to part company here, I'm afraid. Hitler, just for one example, didn't distort Nietzsche's philosophy so much as expand, interpret, and apply salient aspects of that philosophy in an idiosyncratic and specifically focused manner (just as Marx expanded, interpreted, and applied Hegel and as Du Boise expanded and interpreted Marx), but nothing he actually did is in anyway inconsistent with legitimate readings and understanding of Nietzsche core claims (and I have little interest in Nietzsche's personal perspectives regarding abuse of animals any more than for Pablo Escobar's building of schools, playgrounds, and soup kitchens for the peasants who grew his coca or for Marx' claims of his concern for the poor and downtrodden. My concern is with their ideas and their consequences).

Edited July 23, 2012 by ShawFanX

ShawFanX · July 23, 2012

Bad choice of examples indeed. Killing enemy babies was standard military practice in many societies, since they had no value as slaves. And we must remember that infanticide was widely practiced by most ancient societies until replaced by modern abortion, not to mention partial birth abortion. Try telling modern abortionists that it is wrong to inflict pain on the innocent. How many babies have been left to starve to death in world history? Hundreds of millions. Remember in times of famine the weakest always die first. And selling your own children into slavery or servitude was commonplace until a century ago.

When I mentioned the Japanese during their occupation of major cities and regions of China, I had in mind the practice of throwing Chinese babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets on their descent. I'm sure this was thought to be a quite humorous competitive game at the time. Then, of course, there was the Coliseum. Did those people know that eating grapes and drinking wine while watching men, woman, and children torn apart and devoured by wild animals for entertainment was morally wrong? Could neuroscience or evolutionary biology have clarified that for them, one way or another?

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

Thanks for saying what I would have said, bukowski. I really don't get the hating on humanists and materialists on display in this thread, just like I don't get the hating on religion. If all spirit is matter and God is an exalted man, then Mormons are hardcore materialist humanists, just like we're hardcore theists. The fundamental point is that there is no contradiction between the two in our theology, which reframes a whole heck of a lot of the debate between "science" and "religion". The problem with appropriating traditional secular critiques of post-Apostasy Christianity is that most of the criticisms don't apply to Mormonism, and indeed support an LDS view; the problem with appropriating traditional critiques of humanism and "materialism" (as if they are bad things) is that they too backfire from a Mormon view. That's why I think it really is a Restoration; it so elegantly solves so very many problems.

As I have said before, when God is a Man, humanism becomes theology.

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

When I mentioned the Japanese during their occupation of major cities and regions of China, I had in mind the practice of throwing Chinese babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets on their descent. I'm sure this was thought to be a quite humorous competitive game at the time. Then, of course, there was the Coliseum. Did those people know that eating grapes and drinking wine while watching men, woman, and children torn apart and devoured by wild animals for entertainment was morally wrong? Could neuroscience or evolutionary biology have clarified that for them, one way or another?

But it made them happy! Surely that is what defines goodness isn't it?

Kerry A. Shirts · July 23, 2012

Aside from the obvious argument from extremes (everyone knows its wrong to torture babies...) our societal discourse comes from a long history of belief in God and as Mormons believe we are created in God's image and therefore subject to His morals by birthright.
I don't think you can make an argument that morality comes from science without having a control group completely isolated from society and the societal discourse.

Of course you can't. It is the interaction with society that has taught us the morals.

Kerry A. Shirts · July 23, 2012

So you are not saying that morality comes from science, just that science can study morality.

Morals come from interactions of our fellow human beings. Science certainly can and does study that, after all, if it's in the realm of the physical, then science can claim to study it, and morals are involved with physical people, so yes, science can study morality and come to conclusions based on the data collected, most definitely.

ShawFanX · July 23, 2012

This is Robert Solomon, my professor from UCLA who taught me Nietzsche. There are many videos. The important thing to remember is what Nietzsche was attacking was what we call "sectarian Christianity".
He was actually a humanist who affirmed above all, the importance of life.
http://www.dailymoti...death-of_webcam

So then, sectarian Christianity is evil, along with all of its Judeo-Christian moral and ethical norms and traditions, and worth utterly destroying in the name of providing the raptors with the tasty little lambs they desire as sacrifices to the power of the unencumbered will to dominate, control, manipulate, expand, consume, and obliterate all opposition to the ego's desires and appetites once all values have been reevaluated and shown to be arbitrary and illusory, after which all that is left is the will to power?

This is not what my philosophy teacher taught as a legitimate reading of Nietzsche. A "humanist?" Nietzsche called himself and those who followed his ideas "immoralists," and "humanists" in the contemporary sense would have been seen by him as servile weaklings besotted of slave morality just as Christians were. Nietzsche is, in actuality, the unambiguous fountainhead and nucleus of much of the evil that has dogged the modern world since the end of the 19th century, and an archetypical example of what I would term the "virus" of German idealistic philosophy generally (and continental philosophy even more broadly speaking).

Kerry A. Shirts · July 23, 2012

And all the examples given about all those babies getting killed, even if God gave the morals, they still didn't do the right thing now did they? Postulating morals comes from God does nothing to minimize the idiots in society who don't follow the morality. One can make a very strong case that it is the religious who are the most immoral of all. There are exceptions, of course, but history can prove God hates the Jews, or loves them, depending on what you choose to emphasize. God giving morals doesn't make anyone behave any better does it? After all, there are over 1 billion people in the world who don't believe in God, are they always corrupt, wicked, evil, killing, murdering and torturing? If the absence of God giving morals is presented, it still doesn't show those who disbelieve are the opposite of what we would proclaim is moral activity.

What we would have to show is that the complete disbelief of God giving morals shows those are the most evil people. The data simply don't show this in any manner whatsoever. There are ALWAYS bad exceptions, but of course, but hey, after all, even Mormons become criminals, cheaters, killers, rapists, thieves, drunks, and bums, not to say politicians. Obviously God's morals don't get rid of bad people anymore than understanding morals comes from society.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

Actually I believe in a kind of Utilitarianism which places the affirmation of life- in a Nietzschean way- at the center of morality.

A society like Rome was ultimately committing suicide with its excesses. If those people had valued life above all the society and culture would have survived. But this is not a scientific observation- it is a moral assumption, derived simply from the way I personally believe our consciences are structured. I believe that all people have the Light of Christ- and that is essentially a revelation from God we all possess which distinguishes right and wrong and by which we know that life is sacred.

My favorite work of non-scripture is the Didache which teaches the difference between "The Way of Life" and "The Way of Death".

It is clear when you read it that the Way of Life is essentially what we Mormons would call following the commandments and the Way of Death is NOT following the commandments.

I believe that from this common affirmation of life we are totally harmonious with our scriptures and at the same time humanism which values human life above all.

If one desires to use an evolutionary model for the evolution of morality (I do not- I think morality is God given) it is also compatible with such a model. On that formulation, it says that what is considered "moral" is what is best for the species and culture. It also fits in with memetics- the notion that ideas themselves follow an evolutionary model. Those ideas survive which work best.

Notice there is no reference here to science- nothing about "what corresponds to reality" as defining the abstraction of "truth"- what it says is that ultimately what works for humanity is what is seen as morally correct.

And when we see the Didache as the link to scripture (though it is not canonized), it can be put together into a view which harmonizes all of these views.

And yes, I am working on a book.

ShawFanX · July 23, 2012

As I have said before, when God is a Man, humanism becomes theology.

Except that God isn't a human being, in the commonly accepted sense of the term. He is God (and a god), and this is far, far more than simply being a superhuman (as were the ancient Greek deities). Humanism is a philosophy and ideology that subverts and then absorbs God's functions and role in the cosmos, first by denying God and then by ascribing God's attributes to humans (but of course, always in some future utopian state that we must all work diligently to bring to pass).

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

Morals come from interactions of our fellow human beings. Science certainly can and does study that, after all, if it's in the realm of the physical, then science can claim to study it, and morals are involved with physical people, so yes, science can study morality and come to conclusions based on the data collected, most definitely.

You are still not getting it. We are not talking about what people think is moral we are talking about why they think it IS moral.

That is not scientifically discoverable. You must start the whole discourse with a moral assumption, plucked from the air, or better yet, revealed.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

Well now I think I really have said about all I have to say about that.

- Forrest Gump

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

Except that God isn't a human being, in the commonly accepted sense of the term. He is God (and a god), and this is far, far more than simply being a superhuman (as were the ancient Greek deities). Humanism is a philosophy and ideology that subverts and then absorbs God's functions and role in the cosmos, first by denying God and then by ascribing God's attributes to humans (but of course, always in some future utopian state that we must all work diligently to bring to pass).

Yeah, I think we call that "the eternities" and "The Millenium" or "Zion"

Got a few banks in Utah called that don't we? You know- beehives and all that stuff?

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

volgadon · July 23, 2012

And all the examples given about all those babies getting killed, even if God gave the morals, they still didn't do the right thing now did they? Postulating morals comes from God does nothing to minimize the idiots in society who don't follow the morality. One can make a very strong case that it is the religious who are the most immoral of all. There are exceptions, of course, but history can prove God hates the Jews, or loves them, depending on what you choose to emphasize. God giving morals doesn't make anyone behave any better does it? After all, there are over 1 billion people in the world who don't believe in God, are they always corrupt, wicked, evil, killing, murdering and torturing? If the absence of God giving morals is presented, it still doesn't show those who disbelieve are the opposite of what we would proclaim is moral activity.
What we would have to show is that the complete disbelief of God giving morals shows those are the most evil people. The data simply don't show this in any manner whatsoever. There are ALWAYS bad exceptions, but of course, but hey, after all, even Mormons become criminals, cheaters, killers, rapists, thieves, drunks, and bums, not to say politicians. Obviously God's morals don't get rid of bad people anymore than understanding morals comes from society.

But now you've changed your tune. Religion is evil because it encourages that behaviour, etc., etc., but now that many examples have been given of non-religious and scientistic misbehaviour, it is a human condition.

ShawFanX · July 23, 2012

But it made them happy! Surely that is what defines goodness isn't it?

That's part of my point to Kerry. Its also a very postmodern concept. Radical, relativistic subjectivism. If you've never heard or read some of the transcripts of the tape recordings Ted Bundy made to some of his victims, as he was preparing to kill them, its quite instructive. Bundy had a different consciousness, and a completely different value system. For him, killing another innocent human being would fulfill him - make him "happy;" give him joy and meaning. Yes, it sounds nuts, and it is, but history is full of examples of mass movements and attitudes among human beings just as crazy and immoral from a gospel (and general Judeo-Christian) perspective. Kerry's claim that humans just "know" that right is right and wrong is wrong probably derives from the gospel teaching of the Spirit of Christ that all come into the world with - our "conscience."

While I accept that as true, nothing in Church teaching gives that influence the power to overwhelm and crush cultural conditioning and tradition as a matter of course, at least when it is pervasive, intense, and appears to simply reflect "the way of things." Ancient Samurai could, at any time, call some nearby peasants over to them and decapitate them just to test the sharpness of their swords. This was accepted as normative. What did those Samurai just "know" that Kerry claims to "know," and what could science have told them relative to it?

CASteinman · July 23, 2012

Nietzsche called himself and those who followed his ideas "immoralists," and "humanists" in the contemporary sense would have been seen by him as servile weaklings besotted of slave morality just as Christians were. Nietzsche is, in actuality, the unambiguous fountainhead and nucleus of much of the evil that has dogged the modern world since the end of the 19th century, and an archetypical example of what I would term the "virus" of German idealistic philosophy generally (and continental philosophy even more broadly speaking).

I am out of my depth, having never studied this stuff, but I am aware of Nietzsche in a superficial way and at that level, my understanding matches yours. Right now there is a popular song on the radio that echos just one of his sayings -- "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". A saying that is both obviously false and yet an irrational rallying cry that is scary in its implications of what could be permitted under this aegis of "improvement".

Every time I hear that song I feel a deep emotional disgust that the reality of human suffering is so falsified and trivialized. I have a very distinct memory of my father, a deeply good man, screaming in agony and then, later, doing his best to be upbeat and optimistic and happy while being entirely immobile and unable to make his thoughts known after a powerful stroke. His bravery and goodness in what were some of the most intolerable conditions imaginable are so admirable -- I hope I can be a little like him. But do not be fooled -- There is no "stronger" in his survival for 3 years in extremely distressful conditions.

I can testify with all the power of my being that the mere fact you may survive something does not necessarily make you stronger nor better. It can make you much worse.

Certainly there must be some people struggling with the Gospel who feel this in their souls... that they have not been made stronger.

I cannot hear this phrase without a visceral reaction and I believe that it can only emerge from either an evil mind intent on making bad changes in people or a juvenile mind, easily fooled and without life experiences.

Edited July 23, 2012 by CASteinman

ShawFanX · July 23, 2012

Yeah, I think we call that "the eternities" and "The Millenium" or "Zion"
Got a few banks in Utah called that don't we? You know- beehives and all that stuff?

No, we call Him, "God." The great "I Am." The difference between "humans" and "God" and "gods" is that, as the Church teaches, between embryo and fully mature adult. It is, to use a mathematical term, "near infinity" in its contrast.

mfbukowski · July 23, 2012

I am out of my depth, having never studied this stuff, but I am aware of Nietzsche in a superficial way and at that level, my understanding matches yours. Right now there is a popular song on the radio that echos just one of his sayings -- "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". A saying that is both obviously false and yet an irrational rallying cry that is scary in its implications of what could be permitted under this aegis of "improvement".
Every time I hear that song I feel a deep emotional disgust that the reality of human suffering is so falsified and trivialized. I have a very distinct memory of my father, a deeply good man, screaming in agony and then, later, doing his best to be upbeat and optimistic and happy while being entirely immobile and unable to make his thoughts known after a powerful stroke. His bravery and goodness in what were some of the most intolerable conditions imaginable are so admirable -- I hope I can be a little like him. But do not be fooled -- There is no "stronger" in his survival for 3 years in extremely distressful conditions.
I can testify with all the power of my being that the mere fact you may survive something does not necessarily make you stronger nor better. It can make you much worse.
Certainly there must be some people struggling with the Gospel who feel this in their souls... that they have not been made stronger.
I cannot hear this phrase without a visceral reaction and I believe that it can only emerge from either an evil mind intent on making bad changes in people or a juvenile mind, easily fooled and without life experiences.

If you want slogans, judge the church by the play "The Book of Mormon". That's pretty popular too.

Enough enough enough!

Kerry A. Shirts · July 23, 2012

But now you've changed your tune. Religion is evil because it encourages that behaviour, etc., etc., but now that many examples have been given of non-religious and scientistic misbehaviour, it is a human condition.

Not at all. Believing God gives morals does not stop the wicked form doing their heinous deeds. Understanding morals coming from our own learning through interaction doesn't stop them either. But ancient societies who were in existence long before the Hebrews were a twinkle in God's eyes behaved morally without ever having known or heard of Yahweh, or Jesus.

Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members