Stargazer Posted September 23, 2013 Author Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Okay. Sometimes I love how threads can meander like everyone was on a big hairy Attention Deficit Disorder trip, and we go from an original question to flights of topic change that would confuse any normal human being. Sometimes I even help drive such meanderings. However, I would like to call a screeching halt to this particular meander. I'm guilty, too, yes, guys, but someone has to do it. And since I started the thread I'm the boss (until the mods step in and cancel my borrowed divinity). So, please mbufkowsky, questing beast, billythelaw, I love your subthreads, but if you really want to continue them, please start your own threads. Apologies to Questing Beast whom I just responded to with a big off-topic post and the right here I say stop posting off-topic. I'm a jerk, I admit it, but I gotta get this thing back on track. And if there isn't anyone who wants to add anything to the OP, I will close the thread, a good time having been had by all. So, any further entries to the question of Dr. Neil Tyson on Religion Eroding Scientific Progress? Edited September 23, 2013 by Stargazer Link to comment
Billy the Law Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 What does what he saw have anything to do with it?? How could one determine if what he said he saw, he "really saw" or if it was a "hallucination" or just a lie? What changed? You didn't know that as a kid?? It cannot be determined on any evidence. The resurrection of Christ cannot be determined on any evidence. The whole point is what effect BELIEVING these things has in your life, just like the belief that it is wrong to kill babies or steal an old lady's money. What evidence do you have that those things are "true"?I think the witness of the Holy Ghost regarding Joseph Smith's vision has everything to do with what we are talking about. Please give authoritative LDS references that corroborate what you are advocating (that testimony is based on finding meaning, value, and purpose) and not on obtaining evidence from the Holy Ghost. Link to comment
Billy the Law Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Okay. Sometimes I love how threads can meander like everyone was on a big hairy Attention Deficit Disorder trip, and we go from an original question to flights of topic change that would confuse any normal human being. Sometimes I even help drive such meanderings. However, I would like to call a screeching halt to this particular meander. I'm guilty, too, yes, guys, but someone has to do it. And since I started the thread I'm the boss (until the mods step in and cancel my borrowed divinity). So, please mbufkowsky, questing beast, billythelaw, I love your subthreads, but if you really want to continue them, please start your own threads. And if there isn't anyone who wants to add anything to the OP, I will close the thread, a good time having been had by all. So, any further entries to the question of Dr. Neil Tyson on Religion Eroding Scientific Progress?Sorry, my last post was made before I saw your post. Link to comment
Stargazer Posted September 23, 2013 Author Share Posted September 23, 2013 Sorry, my last post was made before I saw your post. Don't worry, I'm not that explosive. And please don't interpret the red letters as anger. Just trying to make sure it gets some attention. Link to comment
Questing Beast Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Oh my, here we go again. What do you really "KNOW"?The feeling in my guts, while I have guts. If I don't have guts then I'll go by something else.... Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Nations with the best scientific development also seem to have less tolerance for religious intrusion into scientific investigation. Is there anything to back this up? Does anyone else think this is accurate? I think there is more shadow than substance to it. Arguably some of the best and brightest of scientists have been religious. Inarguably no one religion can claim to them all. To me the big sticking point is that science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force into science. It is against the rules so to speak. Individual scientists OTOH can believe in any God/Godlike force, or not, as they want. Link to comment
Questing Beast Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 ... Even if you think I'm wrong. I don't think you are wrong. "We are all mistaken about a great, many, things". You write: "I have a problem with the concept that "God" loses those that he loves." Well, guess what, so do I. So does God. In fact he does not "lose" them, they lose themselves and choose to be elsewhere than in his presence. Fortunately, God gives even the worst of them a degree of glory that is so unimaginably glorious and full of joy that it literally cannot be described or understood by mortals. If someone never "gets it", the question then becomes, "who is to blame"? Mormon doctrine asserts that agency (aka "free will") is the gift of God, ergo God dispenses agency. Mormon doctrine also asserts that nothing was ever created but has always existed, including ourselves. So where did this agency thing come into play? Only when God "gave unto man his agency in the day [he] created them". That makes God responsible for the ultimate outcome of each soul. If God had left well enough alone then each soul would be free of condemnation. You see, it doesn't fit together, when the paradigm says that GtF is just one of "us", only "more intelligent than [we] all". The trouble comes into it when we accept that there is a final state with "no increase" as a result of a limited period of choice. Immortals are to be consigned forever to a limited "glory", or even outer darkness of they join Satan - forever and forever. But if instead "God Is Existence" and everything that exists derives from "God", then we must accept that to not be monstrous "God" must create souls that are destined to be joyful. They don't have to be equal in intellect, gifts or anything else, and no two are exactly alike. And they have to be created to find Joy. No exceptions. No damned, miserable, castoffs. Free will coupled with an immortal search for Joy allows each person to find it in their own way in their own timeline, with "God" always there, wherever "there" Is. You write: "It smacks of less than possessing all power, or worse, makes "God" monstrous by showing favoritism." God shows no favoritism. This is written elsewhere in the assertion that God does not respect persons. His children show their desire to inherit what He offers by way of how they choose to obey what He has commanded. He offers them Exaltation and Eternal Life ("Eternal" being the life that God lives), but some of them have chosen and will choose to inherit less. You are correct that God shows no favoritism. But offering the same ubiquitous "plan" to everyone, knowing that some are "built" to reject it by their very nature, either makes God less than all powerful or a monster of malice aforethought: creating beings that don't "get it" and were never expected to "get it". If you assert that GtF is not to blame for creating a plan that is impossible for some to follow, then you have imagined up a god that is less than all powerful You write: "I don't believe in a concept of "God" that is less than omnipotent, no argument possible." Of course argument is possible. What you believe is completely immaterial. What God believes and commands is all that matters. What, do you think that if God will not redeem every single one of his children to the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom that He is somehow losing something, or that it makes him somehow less than omnipotent, or less than fair? What is it QB? Do you reject Latter-day theology to such an extent that you believe that God will force all of His children in Heaven, regardless of their own wishes and willingness to obey God's laws? Last time I checked, this was the doctrine of Nehor. Yes, Nehor/Korihor (whoever) goes on and on about how a just god would not condemn anyone to hell, etc. They ignore the implied force in their doctrine. That's because the "victors" are writing the account from their perspective. What about all the believers in an infinitely merciful "God" who do not want anything to do with popularity or priest craft? Oh, that's right, the BoM doesn't admit that any such "grey" areas exist in the population. What about believing in "God" who Is responsible for all things that Exist? Does that make "God" into a puppeteer? Only if "God" does all the string pulling. But if "God" creates minds that are on their own, yet by nature seek forever back toward "God In Total", i.e. always hungering to know as much about "God" as possible, and searching throughout the "world of humans" for evidence of "God", and in searching discover the growing certainty that "God Is", then that knowledge eventually admits to the mind of the searching one that Joy which is like light and grows forever brighter. There is no "force" about it, only love in creating beings that love Joy. Then putting us into venues where there is opposition to Joy, or even "anti-joy" if you will. But it doesn't last very long. We get opposition in small doses, called mortality, just enough to point us to Joy everlasting: because when we experience "anti-joy" we then see more clearly what Joy Is, and we go for it. The bald fact of the matter is that some who could have chosen otherwise will choose not to be exalted, and this by their own actions. Forever? Then either GtF made a "plan" which only works for some, and therefore is not an all powerful plan, or else, worse, "God" made them (us) with the deliberate weakness to not "get it". You write: "The Infinite meaning of that concept of omnipotence I will never fully comprehend, but I do apprehend it even now, so I trust that forever we all learn more and more about what "God Is". There is no final "estate" for immortal beings of expanding intelligence. There Is only ultimate Joy." There's something I don't understand, when you say you will never fully comprehend it. Never? Not even later? If John the Apostle said that in the end we will be like He is, and that we are joint-heirs with Christ, we who inherit this will comprehend it fully and will apprehend it fully. We are human. "God" manifests finitely as one of us, with body and human emotions, etc. So John is correct, that when we see God we will see him as he Is, and we will be like him. But, "God In Total", being Infinite, is not human only, but everything we can possibly imagine, and infinitely more besides. We are finite: "God Is Infinite": what about that is impossible to understand? A finite mind cannot, ever, comprehend an Infinite Mind. And you're right about there being "no final estate", for there is eternal progression. Once a being has been raised to that point by God, there is no longer any doubt, but there will be this "power" that you speak of, and your progression will be in providing Universes for your spirit children in turn to be raised to the level you have been raised to. Worlds without end, as Father likes to say. The whole doctrine of "kingdoms of glory" is only a parable, I assert. The Mormon take on it as separated kingdoms, where lower cannot associate with higher, unless the higher condescend to "visit", is twisting the actuality of immortal existence, imho. I think that the reality is like looking up at the night sky and seeing the moon (reflecting the sun), and all the stars, together in the same firmament. You might as well think of the firmament/universe as the same "home" or environment, so that no heavenly body is separated from the rest. Some, as the "parable" says, are brighter than others and less bright than others, with the local sun(s) being the brightest of all. We already know that suns exist that are millions of times larger than our sun. Does that mean that our sun is a puny "celestial kingdom" compared to other suns? Analogy is all it is, pointing to the infinitely expanding universe (world of humans) that we apprehend from mortal Earth at this moment in spacetime. Every soul is constantly learning and growing more intelligent. We all associate together forever, and, almost incomprehensibly, we love each other, yet our love pales compared to "God's Love" which is Infinite.... Link to comment
Questing Beast Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 @Stargazer: close your own thread, I don't care. I got in my say. OK, that was just rude. You are out of the thread. Tyson is just like any other scientist who doesn't like to ponder the imponderable. He lacks patience with those who do, and thinks that pondering the imponderable is somehow inimical to real scientific thought. He is dead wrong. Without metaphysical pondering science has absolutely no point, nowhere to go. We are all yearning to get off this ball of mud and out into the universe, the full-blown, expanding "world of humans". We can wait until we die, but maybe we just get reborn here and never get off. So we contribute to advancing our technology, that we have already contributed to earlier, with the sole purpose of getting off of here and out there. Maybe this is how it is done: generation by generation, of ourselves cooperating with ourselves, until we finally can "fly" as we feel in our guts we are meant to do. That is purely religious, metaphysical, mystical stuff. And science of the empirical empowers the physical capability to fulfill our mystical dreams.... Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) Okay. Sometimes I love how threads can meander like everyone was on a big hairy Attention Deficit Disorder trip, and we go from an original question to flights of topic change that would confuse any normal human being. Sometimes I even help drive such meanderings. However, I would like to call a screeching halt to this particular meander. I'm guilty, too, yes, guys, but someone has to do it. And since I started the thread I'm the boss (until the mods step in and cancel my borrowed divinity). So, please mbufkowsky, questing beast, billythelaw, I love your subthreads, but if you really want to continue them, please start your own threads. Apologies to Questing Beast whom I just responded to with a big off-topic post and the right here I say stop posting off-topic. I'm a jerk, I admit it, but I gotta get this thing back on track. And if there isn't anyone who wants to add anything to the OP, I will close the thread, a good time having been had by all. So, any further entries to the question of Dr. Neil Tyson on Religion Eroding Scientific Progress? Aside from the last sentence from Dr. Tyson, I didn't hear anything anti-religious. Didn't Dr. Tyson cite that 1/4 of all Nobel laureates were Jews? Didn't he praise the Muslims from 800-1100 AD in Baghdad? Indeed, I think the message he shared is vitally important and not limited to anit-science views from religion. Do some research on Trofim Lysenko in communist Russia who rejected Mendelian genetics(He had some of his opponents executed and set back Russian and Chinese agriculture by decades). Research chiropractic denial of the germ theory of disease. Just mentioning Global warming in a recent thread resulted in the thread degenerating and being locked. When people use their religious views, or political views to challenge science on such things as the age of the earth, the efficacy of vaccines, the germ theory of disease, etc. etc. they can do real harm. People start to question the scientific method and science itself. We do this at our peril. We need bright young minds to find evolutionary cures for cancer, new treatments for mental disorders, new advances in energy. We will not get there by following the anti-scientific sentiment expressed in some religious and political teachings ("When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above." for instance). Edited September 23, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding Link to comment
Stargazer Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 @Stargazer: close your own thread, I don't care. I got in my say. OK, that was just rude. You are out of the thread. Tyson is just like any other scientist who doesn't like to ponder the imponderable. He lacks patience with those who do, and thinks that pondering the imponderable is somehow inimical to real scientific thought. He is dead wrong. Without metaphysical pondering science has absolutely no point, nowhere to go. We are all yearning to get off this ball of mud and out into the universe, the full-blown, expanding "world of humans". We can wait until we die, but maybe we just get reborn here and never get off. So we contribute to advancing our technology, that we have already contributed to earlier, with the sole purpose of getting off of here and out there. Maybe this is how it is done: generation by generation, of ourselves cooperating with ourselves, until we finally can "fly" as we feel in our guts we are meant to do. That is purely religious, metaphysical, mystical stuff. And science of the empirical empowers the physical capability to fulfill our mystical dreams.... I agree with both sentiments you present here. Sorry the mod thought you needed to be bounced from the thread. I take some of the responsibility, since I was jacking my own thread while I was getting up on my high horse about others doing the same. Link to comment
Stargazer Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 Aside from the last sentence from Dr. Tyson, I didn't hear anything anti-religious. Didn't Dr. Tyson cite that 1/4 of all Nobel laureates were Jews? Didn't he praise the Muslims from 800-1100 AD in Baghdad? Indeed, I think the message he shared is vitally important and not limited to anit-science views from religion. Do some research on Trofim Lysenko in communist Russia who rejected Mendelian genetics(He had some of his opponents executed and set back Russian and Chinese agriculture by decades). Research chiropractic denial of the germ theory of disease. Just mentioning Global warming in a recent thread resulted in the thread degenerating and being locked. When people use their religious views, or political views to challenge science on such things as the age of the earth, the efficacy of vaccines, the germ theory of disease, etc. etc. they can do real harm. People start to question the scientific method and science itself. We do this at our peril. We need bright young minds to find evolutionary cures for cancer, new treatments for mental disorders, new advances in energy. We will not get there by following the anti-scientific sentiment expressed in some religious and political teachings ("When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above." for instance). Dr. Tyson's entire purpose, from what I heard, was at least mildly anti-religious in tone, even he wasn't coming on in full Richard Dawkins mode. Keep in mind that I like Dr. Tyson, for all that I haven't met him. I have one of his books, and he is a great popularizer of astronomy. He is right up there with Carl Sagan in effectiveness in presenting astronomy and science in general to the public. He just has an attitude about religion that I don't appreciate. 1 Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Dr. Tyson's entire purpose, from what I heard, was at least mildly anti-religious in tone, even he wasn't coming on in full Richard Dawkins mode.You may be correct, but it was not evidenced in that video. The was only one anti-religious statement in the entire video and that was the last sentence. Now eight minutes into the talk, a portion of his talk was cut. Perhaps in this portion of his talk he was anti-Christian and anti-Jew. My suspicion based on the billboard he displayed was that he was anti-fundamentalist. Do you really think that fundamentalist views pose no danger to science or society? More and more religious people are rejecting the science behind vaccines (see here). This is a threat to our herd immunity and endangers all of us, especially our very young children who can't be immunized. What about young earth creationists? In order to maintain their view of the bible, they must reject modern physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, anthropology, archaeology among others. Children learn to distrust science and the scientific method. President Packer's quote that I provided above sums up this sentiment ("When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above."). How likely is it that someone raised in such an environment is going to go into the sciences? Make new discoveries? This is Dr. Tyson's point in the video (as linked) and I think it is a good one. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 You may be correct, but it was not evidenced in that video. The was only one anti-religious statement in the entire video and that was the last sentence. Now eight minutes into the talk, a portion of his talk was cut. Perhaps in this portion of his talk he was anti-Christian and anti-Jew. My suspicion based on the billboard he displayed was that he was anti-fundamentalist. Do you really think that fundamentalist views pose no danger to science or society? More and more religious people are rejecting the science behind vaccines (see here). This is a threat to our herd immunity and endangers all of us, especially our very young children who can't be immunized. What about young earth creationists? In order to maintain their view of the bible, they must reject modern physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, anthropology, archaeology among others. Children learn to distrust science and the scientific method. President Packer's quote that I provided above sums up this sentiment ("When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above."). How likely is it that someone raised in such an environment is going to go into the sciences? Make new discoveries? This is Dr. Tyson's point in the video (as linked) and I think it is a good one. Contra Packer's quote I rely on both. Evolution is just proof of Gods handiwork. Link to comment
Stargazer Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) You may be correct, but it was not evidenced in that video. The was only one anti-religious statement in the entire video and that was the last sentence. Now eight minutes into the talk, a portion of his talk was cut. Perhaps in this portion of his talk he was anti-Christian and anti-Jew. My suspicion based on the billboard he displayed was that he was anti-fundamentalist. Do you really think that fundamentalist views pose no danger to science or society? More and more religious people are rejecting the science behind vaccines (see here). This is a threat to our herd immunity and endangers all of us, especially our very young children who can't be immunized. What about young earth creationists? In order to maintain their view of the bible, they must reject modern physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, anthropology, archaeology among others. Children learn to distrust science and the scientific method. President Packer's quote that I provided above sums up this sentiment ("When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above."). How likely is it that someone raised in such an environment is going to go into the sciences? Make new discoveries? This is Dr. Tyson's point in the video (as linked) and I think it is a good one. Fundamentalist views, as you call them, are very much the minority. Those espousing them are visible primarily because of the noise they make and the resultant media attention due to the media's needs for notoriety, or the notorious. If it bleeds, it leads. Young Earth creationists are a dying breed, and as much as Dr. Tyson likes to sound the warning bell (as he does in other places on the same subject), those people affected by YEC are working in regular jobs in regular industries, and are not working in science. They only have as much influence as their votes, and there aren't enough of them to make a difference. Besides, YEC was the overwhelming norm 150 years ago - it was prevailing wisdom! If it couldn't stop the march of science then, it certainly won't do so now. Dr. Tyson and his colleagues worry too much. The vaccine issue is interesting. My wife rejects vaccination, not because of religious belief, but because she believes that it causes autism. I cannot tell her anything that will persuade her otherwise. Edited September 24, 2013 by Stargazer Link to comment
cdowis Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Dr. Tyson and his colleagues worry too much. I don't think they are really worried. The vaccine issue is interesting. My wife rejects vaccination, not because of religious belief, but because she believes that it causes autism. I cannot tell her anything that will persuade her otherwise. Tell her that we said it is safe. I don't think she'll become autistic :<) Link to comment
Stargazer Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 Dr. Tyson and his colleagues worry too much. I don't think they are really worried. The vaccine issue is interesting. My wife rejects vaccination, not because of religious belief, but because she believes that it causes autism. I cannot tell her anything that will persuade her otherwise. Tell her that we said it is safe. I don't think she'll become autistic :<) Oh, very funny. You know what I meant. On the other hand, Dr. Tyson sure acts like he's worried. He should thank his lucky stars he wasn't born 50 years earlier when it was much, much worse. Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Fundamentalist views, as you call them, are very much the minority. Those espousing them are visible primarily because of the noise they make and the resultant media attention due to the media's needs for notoriety, or the notorious. If it bleeds, it leads. Young Earth creationists are a dying breed, and as much as Dr. Tyson likes to sound the warning bell (as he does in other places on the same subject), those people affected by YEC are working in regular jobs in regular industries, and are not working in science. They only have as much influence as their votes, and there aren't enough of them to make a difference. Besides, YEC was the overwhelming norm 150 years ago - it was prevailing wisdom! If it couldn't stop the march of science then, it certainly won't do so now. Dr. Tyson and his colleagues worry too much. The vaccine issue is interesting. My wife rejects vaccination, not because of religious belief, but because she believes that it causes autism. I cannot tell her anything that will persuade her otherwise. You raise good and valid points. You will note in my post #84 that we have some very modern examples of non-religious opposition to science. I do not see any need to create a divide and to the extent that Dr. Tyson attempts to create one (with statements like his "the question is why aren't all scientists atheists) I think he does a tremendous disservice. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) I think the witness of the Holy Ghost regarding Joseph Smith's vision has everything to do with what we are talking about. Please give authoritative LDS references that corroborate what you are advocating (that testimony is based on finding meaning, value, and purpose) and not on obtaining evidence from the Holy Ghost. Well I thought this was a central question to the difference between religion and science, but I guess the OP disagrees. I have already posted tons on this issue before anyway, so there is no need to go into it here http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61376-43-minutes-which-could-change-your-life-and-this-forum-science-religion/ Edited September 24, 2013 by mfbukowski Link to comment
Recommended Posts