265 replies to this topic

[shalamabobbi]

supersnail, on 25 August 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

As long as we are talking about Stephens, we need to understand what Gould meant by "the awesome improbability of human evolution" (Wonderful Life). The notion that if evolution were to start over, the same "result" would come about (H. sapiens) is a crackpot idea. Yes, I know that is probably not what you meant, shalamabobbi, but that is an example of the kind of imprecise language I was talking about earlier. Lay readers will get the impression that evolutionary theory precludes the possibility of intervention because evolution supposedly must lead to humans.

What that ScienceDaily article refers to is what could have happened under certain conditions ("selected only those that were the most fit") over a relatively short period of time. The actual clause is "until it eventually arrived at the network that adapted perfectly to a random biochemical input." The article specifically addresses how something like an eye could have evolved. In such circumstances certain outcomes are more probable than others. Over a long period of time, in which all the mechanisms of evolution come into play as well as changes in the environment, vastly different outcomes become equally possible and prediction becomes a loser's game.

And again, I would let the OP speak for herself or himself, but the whole point here is that we should not abandon faith-based beliefs just because they aren't currently supported by scientific theories and data. That is not equivalent to saying that we should instead abandon scientific theories. It is possible to accept a literal parting of the Red Sea without rejecting any geological or physical theory. Whether or not God is a "deceiver" for not making his power more apparent to us under a magnifying glass (figuratively speaking) is another issue.

The gist or point is that objections to the ToE seem to be foisted upon the random search part of evolution as though that would preclude God from using such a process. The results are not the result of the random search but of the filter through which the results are passed. Indeed a directed search rather than a random search would potentially miss the most beneficial outcomes and would require that the most beneficial results were known beforehand which would make a search superfluous to begin with.

Can I be the creator of a garden even though all I do is choose what to plant in that garden? Can God be the creator of life even though that may simply consist of Him running the evolutionary process and selecting the desired outcome?

Edited by shalamabobbi, 25 August 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[William James]

happy, on 20 August 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

In another thread, people seem to need to create scientifically approved reasons why Joseph Smith had his vision. Why do we do that? Why is there this need to appease the Science God to justify our faith?

Top things we seem to need to get science's approval to believe:

1. A global flood - Instead of it being just the simple power of God to add or remove water through pure will, we need to see things like where the water came from, and how archaeological evidence matches. We ignore the fact a flood story has occurred in more than one culture and seem to want Science's permission to believe.

2. The parting of the Red Sea - Again, I see so much of a need for this to match science. Perhaps it was a drought and a low tide, or perhaps a big storm caused a sand bar to be exposed. This one is especially supposed to demonstrate the literal power of God. Jesus uses it as an example of a divine miracle, yet we dumb it down to simple naturalistic explanations.

3. Moses and the desert - This one is similar to the First Vision thread. That perhaps Moses wondering around in the desert caused him to hallucinate God.

I have seen apologists suffer from this. FAIR and to a more aggressive extend, the Maxwell Institute, both seem to try to secularize everything.

I am reminded of the moral of the "Never-ending Story".The "Nothing" was supposed to represent humanity's loss of hopes and dreams. And in my interpretation, a loss of magic. I remember recently reading an article on love. They are trying so hard to turn love into some simple chemical emotion. I am not sure I want to live in a world of sterile science and a notion that humans are just biological robots.

Why do we seem to hell bent on appeasing science? Are we to the point that religious ideology must get scientific approval? How is that not the philosophies of man (Science) mixed with scripture? And should all ideas get approval from science first?

I do not believe that science and history must support belief in the supernatural.  But supernatural or historical beliefs which are undercut by science, archeological evidence, the secular historical record, and/or lack of internal consistency should be questioned and often discarded when the evidence is sufficiently damning.  To take an example for illustrative purposes, I don't have a problem with the belief that God has the power to part the Red Sea.  But believing that God would categorically command the denial of priesthood to people because they are black is internally inconsistent with both a loving God and a God who is no respecter of persons.  Also, dramatic historical claims about extraordinary events should be questioned when record-keeping was in place and the event or person seems to get no mention.  I would expect, for example, that the Egyptian historical records would mention pharoah and thousands of soldiers being horrifically drowned in the Red Sea.  The absence of that does not prove the event did not happen, but it certainly gives legitimate reason to doubt.  Where doubt is perfectly reasonable, it is not the place of believers to criticize the doubters for not believing, particularly when the criticism is based upon the assumption that non-belief is a sign or result of moral weakness or mere "desire to sin."

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR, on 25 August 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Why do you continue to insult me with this elementary school indoctrination pablum.  Your reading list is pretty limited.   Until the evolutionists cure their tunnel vision and start taking evidences of advanced ancient civilizations seriously they will continue to miss the mark.

I have no idea as to the level of education you have as to evolution. I said it was a start. What does advanced ancient civilizations have to do with evolution?

See http://nationalacade....org/evolution/

See http://www.sciencema...t/ardipithecus/

See http://www.pbs.org/w...rary/index.html

See http://www.talkorigi...to-biology.html

See http://www.biomedcen...om/bmcevolbiol/

[supersnail]

A secondary comment I would like to make, if I may, has to do with where people are coming from and why some of the disagreements seen in this thread may be hard to resolve.

Maybe it is one thing if someone grows up in the LDS Church and then in adulthood starts learning about evolution in earnest, but in an anti-religious context because of 9/11 and Stephen Jay Gould's death less than a year later. Then one might feel the need to change one or two beliefs because those beliefs are perceived to be dissonant with science (whereas they might actually not be, for reasons I have discussed). On the other hand, you have ex-atheists who are going from a position of total unbelief to acceptance of various doctrines, including the Resurrection and the Ascension. Many of them probably learned about evolution from an agnostic viewpoint in childhood, but are willing to explore Mormonism.

In the second situation, ideas like Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), and underdeterminism in philosophy, become important, because they deal with various so-called scientific objections to Mormonism in a sweeping way. You cannot be expecting ex-atheists to deal with Mormon doctrines on a piecemeal basis from a "scientific" standpoint or they may never reach a state of belief. They may just languish in agnosticism or revert to atheism.

With respect, I caution human-evolution enthusiasts that if they keep harping on this theme of a conflict between faith-based beliefs and scientific theories, and if they continue to deny that faith-based beliefs should not be discarded/changed just because they aren't currently supported by scientific theories and data (and this extends beyond this message board), they risk pushing away atheist or formerly atheist investigators. They will look at what you are doing with evolution and apply the same reasoning to areas other than the Creation and the Fall. More importantly, the reasoning is wrong and even scientifically illiterate in some cases, as we are seeing despite pretensions to being more scientific and educated than creationists.

Maybe none of this matters in third world countries, where there are fewer atheists to begin with. In the USA, there are more atheists and more people who are just nominally religious, or modernist Christians. Orientations like NOMA are needed to help dissolve huge obstacles to belief. NOMA emphatically does not mean that faith should be justified using science. Drawing from science can be appropriate in apologetics, but apologetics is mainly about critically examining alleged reasons for disbelief, not building belief in the first place. Ultimately, views such as NOMA must prevail.

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

Sorry I have no idea as to what you meant. Please explain in simple words that this faithful LDS who happens to be a scientist can understand.

[supersnail]

A little bit of scientism may not hurt the overall faith of someone who has been LDS for decades or was born into the church. Scientism would not be a good starting point for an agnostic who is interested in learning about Mormonism or anyone who already has great appreciation for and knowledge of science.

That's basically what I was saying. It's more of a side comment, not meant to change anyone's personal beliefs about evolution. Maybe it's not even controversial.

Despite its limitations that others and I have addressed in this thread and other threads, the Non-overlapping Magisteria view that science and religion are different domains is reasonable, even in cases where there appears to be some crossover. Young Earth creationists who don't try to justify their Young Earth creation beliefs using science will be fine.

I have great respect for people who can say, "Our knowledge is nothing compared with what God knows, but I fully admit that these faith-based beliefs of mine are not supported by science. Though I stand by my beliefs, I will not get in the way of geologists, biologists etc. doing what they do best. I do not need to use science to validate beliefs that I was supposed to be accepting on faith anyway. Faith is meant to be challenged by our experiences and observations. God never promised that faith would come easily to everyone. I do not expect others to accept my beliefs on a scientific basis. It bothers me that others seem to put on a show of being smarter than creationists and try to pit scientists against scientists and non-scientists with various faith-based beliefs, but I will not give in to the temptation to join in the idolization of science. I appreciate science, but I will not make it my master. Science was given to us to use in faith and obeying God's commandments."

[mfbukowski]

supersnail, on 26 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Despite its limitations that others and I have addressed in this thread and other threads, the Non-overlapping Magisteria view that science and religion are different domains is reasonable, even in cases where there appears to be some crossover. Young Earth creationists who don't try to justify their Young Earth creation beliefs using science will be fine.

I know.  I have been telling them that, but they tend to think I am a bad guy.  

[thesometimesaint]

IMNTBHO anyone whom worships at the alter of science is an idolater, and any whom dismisses science should try to live without it.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, on 26 August 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

I know.  I have been telling them that, but they tend to think I am a bad guy.  

Just as a follow up on my own quote here- what I am trying to show here is that there are many many ways of seeing the gospel as true and many different angles and possible perspectives.  What I am really against is people who think "such and such is the truth, so the gospel is wrong", or on the other side "the gospel is true, so such and such must be false".

I think that sometimes people must misunderstand that and think that I am liberal or conservative or just plain weird and they are probably all right!  I see myself as a philosophical therapist in a lot of ways, trying to clear up confusion in the way we speak of gospel topics and just want to point out that there are multiple ways of seeing these issues.

The bottom line is that when we have a testimony of some principle we need to understand that God teaches us all individually and the fact that the next guy understands it differently doesn't mean he is some kind of enemy, and that even though we might think that our view is totally incompatible with his view, after a little discussion we might find that we actually agree on the substance and that the rest comes from our individual experiences in this world making altering out particular perceptions of issues.

In the long run, we just need to understand that we are all on the same road, each of us doing the best we can in our own ways, and that God loves us and is trying to get some of these principles through our thick skulls so we can get back to him.  That's what it's all about.

[ERayR]

mfbukowski, on 28 August 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Just as a follow up on my own quote here- what I am trying to show here is that there are many many ways of seeing the gospel as true and many different angles and possible perspectives.  What I am really against is people who think "such and such is the truth, so the gospel is wrong", or on the other side "the gospel is true, so such and such must be false".

I think that sometimes people must misunderstand that and think that I am liberal or conservative or just plain weird and they are probably all right!  I see myself as a philosophical therapist in a lot of ways, trying to clear up confusion in the way we speak of gospel topics and just want to point out that there are multiple ways of seeing these issues.

The bottom line is that when we have a testimony of some principle we need to understand that God teaches us all individually and the fact that the next guy understands it differently doesn't mean he is some kind of enemy, and that even though we might think that our view is totally incompatible with his view, after a little discussion we might find that we actually agree on the substance and that the rest comes from our individual experiences in this world making altering out particular perceptions of issues.

In the long run, we just need to understand that we are all on the same road, each of us doing the best we can in our own ways, and that God loves us and is trying to get some of these principles through our thick skulls so we can get back to him.  That's what it's all about.

I vote for weird.  But then there are those that consider me weird too. .

[mfbukowski]

ERayR, on 28 August 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

I vote for weird.  But then there are those that consider me weird too. .

  

You should ask my wife if I am weird.

On second thought, don't.

Edited by mfbukowski, 28 August 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[supersnail]

shalamabobbi, on 25 August 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

The gist or point is that objections to the ToE seem to be foisted upon the random search part of evolution as though that would preclude God from using such a process. The results are not the result of the random search but of the filter through which the results are passed. Indeed a directed search rather than a random search would potentially miss the most beneficial outcomes and would require that the most beneficial results were known beforehand which would make a search superfluous to begin with.

The ScienceDaily article about the computer simulation would be more relevant if someone were making an argument like irreducible complexity. Otherwise, the whole issue of the evolution of the eye is arguably moot because of historical contingency. Who cares about an eye when human evolution as a whole is improbable, which it is unless you are taking an extremist position on convergence or directionality. I'm not saying that it is so improbable that it couldn't have happened, but rather that the improbability suggests opportunities for divine causation/intervention.

The objection that some creationists (to clarify, I have been using the word "creationist" broadly and without the connotation of so-called Christian fundamentalism) have about the so-called randomness of evolution is that it precludes divine purpose. I don't think what most of them have in mind is that a deterministic or stochastic process would be more compatible with that purpose. Pointing out that natural selection is non-random has limited relevance, because those creationists believe that evolution precludes external purpose and describing a non-random mechanism of evolution doesn't really clarify how God could have an influence. Also, neither the random nor the non-random aspects of evolution preclude God's influence at an initial stage, or intervention.

Nor do they prove that influence or intervention. However, the random aspects of evolution leave open the possibility of an additional kind of intervention. For example, we can imagine God causing instances of what Gould called "decimation." Even if the specific results are unintended and unforeseeable, some causes of decimation may only appear unintended, and it may not be possible to investigate them fully in the first place. How would we study what caused an asteroid to hit the earth 250 million years ago?

Most creationists aren't LDS and aren't comfortable with this idea of God using and cooperating with evolutionary mechanisms. Though it is not proof of God's role in the origin of humans, the improbability of human evolution is another indication that God's intervention can be compatible with evolutionary theory. The actual randomness of our existence as a species (as opposed to the mythical randomness of evolution that presupposes no purpose, based on a misunderstanding of evolution), apparent in the context of numerous possible evolutionary outcomes that weren't realized, is no reason to believe that evolution is incompatible with God's intervention.

Quote

Can I be the creator of a garden even though all I do is choose what to plant in that garden? Can God be the creator of life even though that may simply consist of Him running the evolutionary process and selecting the desired outcome?

Yes and yes. I just think we should avoid unintentionally giving the impression that a long stretch of evolution could be repeated.

Edited by supersnail, 30 August 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[shalamabobbi]

supersnail, on 30 August 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Human evolution as a whole is improbable

If I have a deck of cards and deal them out onto a table and take note of the order I can say that it is very improbable that that would occur. And yet it just did. So the issue is one of intentional design. Since the standard scientific theory does not admit God into the mix it is not burdened with the improbable outcome of humans it merely says humans are here, the fossil record supports this long gradual development, the genome with its complexity can be reached in the time allotted at the observed measured rate of change in the DNA from one generation to the next, etc. Humans are not the goal they are one of the results of the process that occurred.

So the "improbability suggests opportunities for divine causation/intervention" only applies if one's faith rests upon the need for such intervention in the first place. I'll get back to this point.

Quote

Most creationists aren't LDS and aren't comfortable with this idea of God using and cooperating with evolutionary mechanisms.

A lot of LDS aren't either. Take note of posters like BlackStrap, ANACO, ERayR, etc. This isn't confined to any particular religion although the Catholics may be in the lead in accepting the theory as a church.

Quote

I just had a problem with the impression given unintentionally that a long stretch of evolution could be repeated

Well before this can be satisfactorily addressed there needs to be computers capable of handling the complexity of such a repeated computation. I am not sure how the data could even be entered in any reasonable length of time. Because chemistry has constraints I think the possibility exists that the evolutionary experiment could repeat. All indications of what we can program to date seem to be compatible with this. However that is just my personal gut opinion. The steps might certainly differ in each run but since each improvement is kept by an evolutionary process all one has to accept is the convergence to the human body as an optimal form for repetition to occur. If some other form is better why didn't it get selected for in the first place?

So back to the "improbability suggests opportunities for divine causation/intervention". Certainly there is no way to determine whether or not God intervened given that one accepts the existence of God. But now if the goal is the human form then His intervention becomes necessary as the odds are against a particular outcome as you've noted (unless repetition is the norm w/o any intervention).

As to divine purpose as a LDS I accept a pre-mortal existence of a part of my being. I believe that intelligence is a primitive that simply exists. God did not make it and in fact cannot make it. But we can be clothed upon with matter and inhabit these tabernacles of flesh. So purpose is still there for me irrespective of whether or not the human body arises without intervention on God's part. The purpose becomes acquiring a body and living the gospel standards in this life to prove worthy of acceptance by God in the next.

I don't worry about objections that "the sky isn't blue because the scriptures say it's purple". I accept the evidence that evolution occurred as the coherent testimony of all the data combined. I accept the church based upon personal experiences that can't be explained away.

I'm not sure if this answers your post or not as it seemed to be contemplative to me.

I'll add here that other LDS believe that man is the direct offspring of God in the body as well as in the spirit. That Adam was (another) son of God born into a condition of immortality from which he chose to fall so as to become capable of reproducing and providing bodies for the rest of us. Jesus' status as the "only begotten" in such a viewpoint becomes "the only begotten in the flesh" where flesh refers to a condition of mortality. That is the belief that I also held for many years (influenced by the writings of J F Smith and Bruce R McConkie) but abandoned when the evidence for evolution became overwhelming.

[supersnail]

shalamabobbi:

Thank you for your extended reply. I had a response, but I'm going to set it aside because I may have misunderstood some things. I just have a couple of questions.

Did you think I was making an argument from improbability that God actually intervened in evolution?

Are you aware of Simon Conway Morris' work, and is there a reason why you seem to prefer views like his (as far as convergence is concerned)?

[shalamabobbi]

supersnail, on 31 August 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

shalamabobbi:

Thank you for your extended reply. I had a response, but I'm going to set it aside because I may have misunderstood some things. I just have a couple of questions.

Did you think I was making an argument from improbability that God actually intervened in evolution?

Are you aware of Simon Conway Morris' work, and is there a reason why you seem to prefer views like his (as far as convergence is concerned)?

I could not tell from your post what exactly you believed or whether you were simply observing what others believed.

I am not a biologist. My degree is in nuclear physics. I am aware of course of the Cambrian explosion but I hadn't had his name attached to that.

Convergence is a pretty basic concept within the ToE and the idea of the experiment repeating itself occurred to me upon studying and coming to understand how it worked and then running computer simulations and looking at others' computer simulations and noticing that repeating the simulation resulted in very similar outcomes.

At first the idea seemed counter intuitive since the search is random but it simplifies when you remember that each improvement is tenaciously held onto. That limits the search space in a very significant manner. Especially initially when it is easiest to improve upon what you have.

[supersnail]

shalamabobbi, on 31 August 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

I could not tell from your post what exactly you believed or whether you were simply observing what others believed.

The topic of this thread has to do with whether faith-based beliefs should be abandoned/revised just because they aren't supported by current scientific theories and data. In principle, an atheist could agree with what I'm saying about evolution as not precluding what has been called "external teleology" -- in fact, I think most atheist and agnostic scientists would agree, though they may consider such teleology, particularly of a divine kind, to be outside the scope of science and therefore uninteresting to them, or at least outside the scope of biology -- so my own particular faith-based beliefs and what I think about how God used or did not use evolution is not really relevant.

In fact, I don't claim to know, and I don't know, whether a certain kind of intervention by God with respect to evolution actually took place. I'm just talking about that which is within the realm of possibility. It may seem contemplative, but it is important when considering how various faith-based beliefs need not come into conflict with science. Yes, atheists can mock what I'm saying as contemplating flying pink elephants, but that is to miss the point.

Others are more concerned with what is within the realm of certainty. So, yes, some LDS individuals on this board do emphasize what scripture says about the origin of the human family, but to the exclusion of evolution, while others seem to assume that science already shows that God's intervention was not needed because human evolution is supposedly inevitable on the basis of evolution playing out on its own according to internal laws. What these two contrasting positions may have in common is a misunderstanding of evolution as leading to humans. Thus, it is important to understand what the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould meant when he wrote that "Homo sapiens is an entity, not a tendency" (Wonderful Life). Gould clearly was not writing as some kind of creationist, but the idea that humans are not the theme of evolution -- but that humans scientifically speaking are just one possible result along with millions of other, concurrently existing species -- is something that both Christians and atheists could benefit from understanding. Humans are not only not a goal of evolution. Evolution does not lead to humans even as an unintended result.

To be clear, evolution is not itself purpose-driven, but it does not preclude purposeful intervention by an entity more powerful than us. This is even clearer when we consider that the Star Trek fantasy of the independent evolution of humans on different planets without God, or even the repeatability of human evolution on earth, is at present just that: a fantasy. Does this prove that God does intervene in/with evolution? No, I would agree it doesn't. As you point out, though, if humans are a desired result, God may have to intervene. Obviously, you are right that the necessity of humans is a faith-based belief.

So, to say that human evolution is improbable is not to say that science cannot account for it. It can, but the improbability leaves room for God's intervention -- without making such intervention necessary or even probable. What I'm saying is not as ambitious as trying to prove a religious doctrine by using Gould's theories, and I have rejected such a project.

Do I believe in as-yet-unknown natural laws that aren't described by current scientific theories? Yes, but I'm not sure why some insist on calling this a belief in the "magical" or the "supernatural" or lumping this with creation science. Just recognizing the possibility that God can intervene without violating known natural laws has nothing to do with creation science.

Regarding convergence, since you are not necessarily claiming that evolution actually does lead to humans or even human-like species, I won't belabor the point and would invite readers to explore these topics themselves. However, the idea that evolution does have such an end result is viewed by some Christians as evidence of design manifest in nature. That's why I asked for clarification about whether you held a strong convergence view and why. What I am arguing in contrast is that we do not need to see evidence in nature of God's intervention to hold a belief that God did intervene, because that belief can be based simply on faith without contradicting any point of evolution as a theory.

A Christian could argue that hypothetical inevitable human evolution is proof of God's influence or design, but that would reinforce an anthropocentric understanding of evolution and lead to Christians rejecting evolution because they cannot see an opportunity for God to have a role. It may seem paradoxical, but the more anthropocentric we make evolution, the less breathing room we give to creationists.

If we consider the Roman Catholic position, the idea that God's role may be limited to just inserting the soul may seem untouchable. However, if people claim or imply that the human mind is an inevitable result of evolution, even Catholics will feel discomfort. In fact, as modern as the Catholic position is, atheist biologist Richard Dawkins (who oddly finds himself in the same camp as Simon Conway Morris in critiquing Gould's emphasis on historical contingency) has criticized the Catholic position on exactly this point.

The idea that God can work with uncreated matter that is not originally organized for his purpose is, I think, an attractive alternative (for various reasons) and one that is particularly found in Mormonism. So, perhaps humans would probably not have been a result of descent with modification through the mechanisms we know about, but because of God's active involvement, a situation in which humans could exist, thrive and exercise agency was ensured to come about. This does not deny that humans could be a result of descent with modification without a powerful being.

Edited by supersnail, 31 August 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[shalamabobbi]

supersnail, on 31 August 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

The topic of this thread has to do with whether faith-based beliefs should be abandoned/revised just because they aren't supported by current scientific theories and data. In principle, an atheist could agree with what I'm saying about evo...      ... This does not deny that humans could be a result of descent with modification without a powerful being.

I would certainly agree with this. The reason I like to mention the idea that belief in God is possible if evolution is unguided is because some see this as a reason to dump their faith. There seems no point to me to base my faith upon a particular viewpoint here when it doesn't affect my faith one way or the other.

Obviously if God directs the outcome of evolution there really isn't a challenge to anyone's faith. But what if He doesn't? Is that a possibility? I think so. Does that viewpoint necessarily lead us to the necessity of abandoning our faith. I don't believe so for the reasons stated. The possibility of convergence and spirits discovering they can inhabit physical forms is all that is necessary.

Pink flying elephants? Certainly might seem a valid critique. But my faith came as a result of some rather profound spiritual experiences relating to the message of the restoration.

[bcuzbcuz]

supersnail, on 26 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Despite its limitations that others and I have addressed in this thread and other threads, the Non-overlapping Magisteria view that science and religion are different domains is reasonable, even in cases where there appears to be some crossover. Young Earth creationists who don't try to justify their Young Earth creation beliefs using science will be fine.

Aren't you trying to state a case for conscious, willed, schizophrenia?

[shalamabobbi]

bcuzbcuz, on 01 September 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Aren't you trying to state a case for conscious, willed, schizophrenia?

I can tell you how it worked in my case. I had a conversion due to the spirit. I "assumed" that everything stated by a leader of the church was true. I read J F Smith and Bruce Reed McConkie. I got a degree in Nuclear Physics. Followed compartmentalization (sometimes referred to as shelving in LDS vernacular), lots of confirmation bias, intentional ignorance of the facts along with the idea that if I took the time to study it all out I could provide the correct interpretation of all the facts. But since my field was in nuclear physics I of necessity understood why nuclear clocks are valid time keepers and so I saw that the idea that J F Smith had that the 7 creative periods were a thousand years each was wrong. Luckily(or unluckily depending on which side of the fence one chooses) I discovered that other leaders of the church disagreed with him about the same time in life.

Schizophrenia has a hard time explaining spiritual experiences that are validated by reality.

LDS Members that state that the rational side of man is part of the natural man and create a dichotomy with the spiritual are, on the totem poll of human intelligence, a few rungs below EVs in my view. Nevertheless they make handy foot holds for those climbing the pole so they are not entirely without utility..

Well it's almost time to be off to the beach here in LA where we will engage in the pastime of surfing with boogie boards. If I am remembering correctly you are somewhere in Scandinavia aren't you? If that's the case,   neener neener  

Edited by shalamabobbi, 01 September 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[mfbukowski]

shalamabobbi, on 01 September 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

I can tell you how it worked in my case. I had a conversion due to the spirit. I "assumed" that everything stated by a leader of the church was true. I read J F Smith and Bruce Reed McConkie. I got a degree in Nuclear Physics. Followed compartmentalization (sometimes referred to as shelving in LDS vernacular), lots of confirmation bias, intentional ignorance of the facts along with the idea that if I took the time to study it all out I could provide the correct interpretation of all the facts. But since my field was in nuclear physics I of necessity understood why nuclear clocks are valid time keepers and so I saw that the idea that J F Smith had that the 7 creative periods were a thousand years each was wrong. Luckily(or unluckily depending on which side of the fence one chooses) I discovered that other leaders of the church disagreed with him about the same time in life.

Schizophrenia has a hard time explaining spiritual experiences that are validated by reality.

LDS Members that state that the rational side of man is part of the natural man and create a dichotomy with the spiritual are, on the totem poll of human intelligence, a few rungs below EVs in my view. Nevertheless they make handy foot holds for those climbing the pole so they are not entirely without utility..

Well it's almost time to be off to the beach here in LA where we will engage in the pastime of surfing with boogie boards. If I am remembering correctly you are somewhere in Scandinavia aren't you? If that's the case,   neener neener  

Didn't realize you were a So Cal guy like me- we should do lunch some time- isn't that what we do around here?  

This is relevant to this thread and also it fits other conversations we are having- it is about Susskind saying that he doesn't quite know if science can answer questions about what is "real".

Funny, I guess he must be schizophrenic too.   It must be contagious

http://www.scientifi...-boy-of-physics