Jump to content

Ryan Dahle

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

630 Excellent


About Ryan Dahle

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, like I said, that is the real issue isn't it. How certain we are about God's existence, attributes, and communication with us will determine how reasonable it seems to cede our moral judgment into his hands. You obviously take it for granted that we can have only a very low reliability of trust in God and his communication to us, compared to our trust in a doctor's credentials/competency. I think that simply reflects a difference in experience, access to certain types of evidence, and different methods of interpreting that evidence. I personally would be much more confident that Go
  2. I don't think that threads the needle quite right. Perhaps we should be more concerned about ensuring outside sources do not override our own understanding of right and wrong. After all, we are our own moral actors, no one else is. Well, most of the time, this is never an issue, at least not for me. The overwhelming majority of what I believe are divine directives are in harmony (or, at least, aren't opposed) with my own moral intuition. If that weren't the case, I would never follow God in the first place. We certainly are our own moral actors, but our human nature and limited know
  3. A good question. I believe there are moral facts which bind even God, but I don't think highly enough of human social cognition to think that we can really understand them beyond the realm of impulses. Better definition of right and wrong has to come from God. Just thought I would chime in here. Some may be interested in Ross Baron's take on these types of issues: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll16/id/510242 He only skims over the polygamy topic, but I think he captures well the implications of the Divine Command theory of ethics, as well as the
  4. In context of all of Kordahl's statements, especially with how frequently he takes issue with Carroll's application of science in the realms of religion and philosophy, I find his review of this section much more narrow and ambiguous than you. He could support Carroll's idea about souls, but he could easily not extend the logic that far, while still appreciating Carroll's explication of physics in this section. As you said, we will just have to disagree here. We've already gone through all this.
  5. I don't share your confidence that Kordahl's conclusions about this section of the book extend as far as you seem to think. And without further elaboration on his part, we will never know. Either way it doesn't matter. I think it has already been established that Carroll's argument about the soul isn't reliable for the same types of reasons that Kordahl himself brought up in other chapters before and after this one. Carroll's conception of the soul isn't necessitated by Latter-day Saint theology. So he ends up tilting at windmills.
  6. Or not. As I quoted above, Kordahl calls the specific arguments I've been referring to as "the best parts" of the book, and agrees with them. As far as I could tell, Kordahl didn't mention the specific arguments you've been repeatedly citing on this board. He talks about the Core theory and it being reliable in its domain of applicability, but he doesn't ever say whether or not he thinks the Core theory can rule out spiritual entities or influence (i.e. whether those phenomena fall within the domain of applicability). Based on the rest of his review, assuming such a specific conclusi
  7. Could you cite a serious LDS scholar that has engaged the content of Carroll's arguments? The closest I've seen is that biologist from the Discovery Institute. He does a superficial book review, but doesn't engage with the actual arguments. I'm not Smac, but here is something I came across in just a few minutes of searching. It was written by what appears to be a graduate student who is now working in the ASU department of physics: https://thenewatlantis.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy-pdfs/20170819_TNA52Kordahl.pdf While he shows much respect for Carroll's writing style and
  8. I think a huge disconnect in this discussion is that you and Carroll seem to be arguing against a brand of dualism that I think is unnecessary. I don't think you have anything to apologize for. You haven't been rude or disparaging, at least not to me. Your views are no less condescending than mine, I suppose. That is just the nature of our opposing opinions and world views when spoken frankly. And I suspected that you would feel differently about the categories of evidence that I alluded to. No need to rehash them all. It has been a worthwhile discussion for me, despite the obvio
  9. Just because we don't know how consciousness emerges from the atoms of our brain doesn't mean there are tenable alternatives to that being what's going on. I never said that the absence of a scientific theory to explain consciousness automatically yields "tenable alternatives to that being what's going on." The point is that if science itself doesn't have a tenable theory to explain a phenomenon (consciousness in this case), one can hardly fault theists for not having a tenable scientific theory to explain how spiritual phenomena interact, scientifically speaking, with the thing that
  10. Those questions are outside of the model's domain of applicability. That doesn't mean that the model is wrong about how robustly it answers the questions within its domain of applicability. And it doesn't mean that the implications of the model are wrong, either. But I thought we were discussing the model's ability to disprove that God (or other spiritual entities) are somehow influencing our consciousness--the only everyday miracle assumed by Latter-day Saints. How can the model begin to disprove that phenomenon if it is inherently outside of its "domain of applicability"? Is there
  11. If the model is so able to predict the real world, why can't it predict what I am going to think next, much less be able to discern my awareness by analyzing my brain activity? Seems like a pretty big problem if you are trying to disprove that God is interacting with people's thoughts. At best, science can identify some interplay between consciousness and brain activity. But we are still mostly groping in the dark. This is hardly the type of "robust" data needed to disprove supernatural interaction, which is the claim you are so adamantly asserting. Probably the same differenc
  12. I haven't yet seen you apply Carroll's arguments in any way that threatens what Latter-day Saint's actually and specifically believe. Latter-day Saints don't believe people are bending spoons with their minds every day (an example of the type of supernaturalism, which you brought up, that you think Carroll's research disproves). Part of the problem is that Carroll's confidence (probably overconfidence) in how well scientists understand quantum phenomena really doesn't matter. That is a lower order of observation that can't of itself explain many higher-level phenomena. Latter-day Saints
  13. First of all, Carroll's assumptions and conclusions (as you represent them) hardly represent the mainstream scientific and philosophical consensus. It's not the established scientific view that we have anything close to a perfect, comprehensive, or complete understanding of all quantum-level properties. More important, it is certainly not the scientific view that the known quantum realm can explain all higher orders of the natural cosmos, much less supernatural phenomena. If quantum-mechanics could explain consciousness, for example, I think that would go a long way to help Carroll's argu
  14. Too many one-liners without clarification for me to continue the conversation. Sorry Mark.
  15. Where did you get that idea? By "this endeavor" I mean the use of archaeological, historical, linguistic, and scientific research as a supplemental evidence to support faith in the Restoration. A significant portion of your posts on this discussion board seem intended to undermine or in someway devalue that endeavor.
  • Create New...