Enslaved By Science

[mfbukowski]

If I am unequipped without a philosophy class I owe that degree of ignorance to the effect my religion had upon me about mixing the scriptures with the philosophies of men. It may be argued that that was not the intent of this temple teaching but that was the result it had upon my mind when attending college after returning from my mission to Argentina.

Dang you are right and now I get it. Never occurred to me before that that would explain the paucity of understanding of philosophy here. Gosh I am a dummy.

Plus at BYU I am sure all they teach is what they think is faith promoting- meaning sectarian philosophy, which is why everyone here who has had any philosophy at all is stuck on Aquinas and the first cause unmoved mover stuff.

No wonder they all sound like EV's. I suppose that's no problem but a few things have happened in the world in the last 800 years. Good thing they don't teach 800 year old science.

[volgadon]

Dang you are right and now I get it. Never occurred to me before that that would explain the paucity of understanding of philosophy here. Gosh I am a dummy.

Plus at BYU I am sure all they teach is what they think is faith promoting- meaning sectarian philosophy, which is why everyone here who has had any philosophy at all is stuck on Aquinas and the first cause unmoved mover stuff.

No wonder they all sound like EV's. I suppose that's no problem but a few things have happened in the world in the last 800 years. Good thing they don't teach 800 year old science.

In addition, as he's going to be teaching politics, I've told him he's welcome to teach any of the great socialist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong.

[shalamabobbi]

That's just downright cruel. We can surf here as well. On the internet and in the water, provided we have wet suits 11 out of the 12 months of the year. (the 12th month I refer to is half of July and half of August before we have to go back to work........since we have legislated vacations of at least a month, neener neeener!)

Shelving, as you call it, was a game I played in my mind where reality didn't have to mete the road. I had two completely divergent belief systems coexisting in my brain simultaneously, never the twain should meet. Of course, a melt down occurred when I awoke from my slumber and tried to address these opposing ideas. Science and Mormonism can only coexist when a value system is applied that allows religious belief to have a value of 100 and science, zero. Anything else is schizophrenic.

Some here promote the idea that Mormonism has no stand on certain issues, thereby allowing science free room. That, to my way of thinking, is like putting a belief system on coaster wheels that glides freely between ideas without ever taking a stance one way or the other. Hence, Mormons can say they believe in a young earth, while not rejecting evolution. They can belief in Moses wandering for 40 years in the Sinai desert, while accepting archaeological evidence that no one was there. The BofM places the Nephites in an unknown spot in North America, neither here, nor there, but everywhere.

It's crazy making.

I see it more as false religious assumptions/ideas being set aside as science provides some solid constraints. I guess I don't have an issue with it being on coaster wheels. It is done all the time within science. Theories are tentative and slide around to fit more data as that data becomes available. If the Higgs Boson had not been detected the standard model would have gotten a revamp.

since we have legislated vacations of at least a month, neener neeener!

Oh you're going to hate me now.. 'Last job with the space agency provided a month paid vacation and another month's worth of paid holidays sprinkled throughout the year. Trouble was I had to commute for 4 hours to get anywhere where I could afford to buy a house on government pay so I eventually quit and struck out on my own..

[shalamabobbi]

supersnail,

I am an investigator. I don't think you are telling me that if I am baptized and later express disagreement with young-earth creationism, I would be considered an apostate?

Oh you'll meet some. The gospel net gathereth of all kinds..

I wondered why you knew so much about LDS viewpoints. I thought maybe you were writing a thesis or something..

[shalamabobbi]

Dang you are right and now I get it. Never occurred to me before that that would explain the paucity of understanding of philosophy here. Gosh I am a dummy.

Plus at BYU I am sure all they teach is what they think is faith promoting- meaning sectarian philosophy, which is why everyone here who has had any philosophy at all is stuck on Aquinas and the first cause unmoved mover stuff.

No wonder they all sound like EV's. I suppose that's no problem but a few things have happened in the world in the last 800 years. Good thing they don't teach 800 year old science.

I was accepted at BYU but I opted for Berkeley. Got my BS degree and was hired by the government which paid for me to go back to Stanford for upper division course work. Trouble was that my pay was frozen at the level I was hired on at.

Lunch sounds great. Let me recover for a couple of days from my new sunburn..

[supersnail]

I think I might have thought up another way to explain it that will hopefully resonate better- I think I will start a new thread about the functions of different types of discourse.

That's the key here: language is a tool the function of religious discourse is different than the function of scientific discourse. Wittgenstein would call each a different set of language games, but no one seems to get that when I say it.

Maybe if I said it was like using a screwdriver to do the job of a hacksaw people will understand it better.

I am trying to a salvage an empirical naturalistic perspective that could serve as a warning sign of sorts to scientists on a road to disbelief. I believe scientists or science-minded people would be more inclined to agree with that perspective.

I'm not saying I'm on that road of course (I am trying to clarify various things to myself, because I don't want to end up with regrets years from now and whine about being "lied" to etc.), but such views resonate with me.

No doubt you are familiar with Quine, and I think you've mentioned him a few times, so you probably know where I'm coming from. I think I do get what you are saying, but I am trying an approach that is a bit different.

I'm not trying to mix scriptures with Quine. I'm just saying...it makes sense to me this way, or rather, disbelief doesn't make sense to me, for these reasons.

[mfbukowski]

shalamabobbi:

That post was a comment on undergraduate science education in many American schools. I didn't think it was that controversial. I do see some recent undergraduate science course reading lists and syllabi including writings by Gould on science and religion. The post was also an oblique criticism of Dawkins. Also, a bit earlier in this thread, I cited research suggesting that even people with graduate education in science are perpetuating misunderstandings of evolution that may contribute to conflicts between some atheists and some Christians.

As we all know, science is not just about obvious facts. What I have said, essentially, is that a sane person can hold a faith-based belief while also accepting scientific consensus, because of the nature of science and scientific theory. Others are suggesting that we should be talking about the DSM-IV. This is what it comes down to. I noted that there were creationists who made contributions to science, and I was not talking about "creation science." Instead of dealing with the implications of that seriously, we have people literally talking about mental illness.

I am an investigator. I don't think you are telling me that if I am baptized and later express disagreement with young-earth creationism, I would be considered an apostate?

I wouldn't purport to know anything about your education. However, I assume people who are familiar with the Bohr-Einstein debates, for example, may have some insight into the importance of thinking about the assumptions and views implicit in, and surrounding, science.

It is definitely not my view that human evolution would be impossible without divine intervention. I was familiar with Gould's ideas, including Non-overlapping Magisteria, years before I started learning about Mormonism. I didn't reject NOMA even when I was an atheist, and I have always been inclined to agree with Gould's positions on how human evolution happened if it happened. The difference is that I am considering today how, in various ways, evolution may not preclude God's influence in the context of Mormonism.

I don't support creation science. It may seem contradictory, but creation science implies that faith-based beliefs should be discarded if they aren't supported by consensus interpretations of currently accepted scientific theories and data.

Respectfully, I suggest that anyone who actually is taking cheap shots at the theory of evolution stop doing so, because they don't need to.

Yeah but here is the deal. Gould is not philosopher. I had never in my life heard of NOMA before a week or two ago- and now I look it up and see that Gould came up with this in 1997- a non-philosopher re-hashing hundred year old philosophy.

William James came up with similar sorts of ideas over a hundred years ago and there is a ton of literature - in fact most of 20th century philosophy is based on the idea that there are many different kinds of discourse which are non-overlapping to use Gould's term. Gilbert Ryle spoke about "category mistakes" which is a similar idea- that certain kinds of discourse do not mesh with others. In fact this is the central insight of Wittgenstein's later philosophy- he calls these non-overlapping types of discourse "language-games", and believes that all the "problems" of philosophy are in fact non-existent because they derive from mixing different language games. John Dewey had similar views and finally Richard Rorty tops the list of many many other philosophers expressing this kind of opinion over the last hundred years.

You will not be seen as an apostate by criticizing young-earth creationism.

Edited September 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[supersnail]

supersnail,

Oh you'll meet some. The gospel net gathereth of all kinds..

I wondered why you knew so much about LDS viewpoints. I thought maybe you were writing a thesis or something..

I used to be an atheist and wrote extensively against Christianity at a high level, though for reasons apart from what NOMA addresses. This is not something that I can just confess and move on from. I will just leave it at that and hope it explains.

Edited September 3, 2012 by supersnail

[TAO]

Wow, mfb, I wish Log were still here. I know he'd disagree with us on alot of stuff, but he was fun to talk to on issues like this.

[mfbukowski]

I used to be an atheist and wrote extensively against Christianity at a high level. This is not something that I can just confess and move on from. I will just leave it at that and hope it explains.

Well join the club. I was an atheist and am a former student of a famous revolutionary communist atheist who was involved peripherally in violent activities.

But I got better.

And incidentally I am also now a Libertarian. But I love Volgadon anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Wow, mfb, I wish Log were still here. I know he'd disagree with us on alot of stuff, but he was fun to talk to on issues like this.

I have his email-

[TAO]

I have his email-

I might have to get that from you some day (with his permission, of course). Not only for philosophy, but we both also really like gaming to an extent. I might be working on something Multi-player in the future... so he might be interested.

Edited September 3, 2012 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

I am trying to a salvage an empirical naturalistic perspective that could serve as a warning sign of sorts to scientists on a road to disbelief. I believe scientists or science-minded people would be more inclined to agree with that perspective.

I'm not saying I'm on that road of course (I am trying to clarify various things to myself, because I don't want to end up with regrets years from now and whine about being "lied" to etc.), but such views resonate with me.

No doubt you are familiar with Quine, and I think you've mentioned him a few times, so you probably know where I'm coming from. I think I do get what you are saying, but I am trying an approach that is a bit different.

I'm not trying to mix scriptures with Quine. I'm just saying...it makes sense to me this way, or rather, disbelief doesn't make sense to me, for these reasons.

Well that seems a noble cause. I don't think one could mix scriptures with Quine regardless of how much one tried but I have no problem with the attempt

If you are in the LA area we should "do lunch" too!

[mfbukowski]

I might have to get that from you some day (with his permission, of course). Not only for philosophy, but we both also really like gaming to an extent. I might be working on something Multi-player in the future... so he might be interested.

He is considering some interesting projects the last time I heard- probably now a couple of months ago.

[mfbukowski]

In addition, as he's going to be teaching politics, I've told him he's welcome to teach any of the great socialist thinkers, provided he makes it clear that they were wrong.

Yes, you are probably right. I get attacked for even mentioning even John Dewey around here.

But of course we all know their views actually were objectively and scientifically FALSE so there is no problem.

[bcuzbcuz]

But I got better.

And incidentally I am also now a Libertarian. But I love Volgadon anyway.

How about that, I'm a Librarian, too.

Oh, you said Libertarian.