Let Me Ask You Few Q's As A Skeptic

[Zoidberg]

In actuality you cannot out of your will hold your breath and die.

I know that, which is why I said "if I don't breathe for 10 minutes, I will die". I also am aware of my own inability to hold my breath that long (you can substitute belief for knowledge, if you want). I don't think UD was being serious.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well DP

You are out of line here, was there anything violent in nature I've written?

It seems that my point sailed right over your head.

I said absolutely nothing to suggest that you're violent. In fact, what I said presumes that you reject the notion that torturing children for fun is alright.

Your anology so is so absurd, it travels well beyond any understanding that you can only dechiper your own anology.

I have little or no idea what the sentence above means, but my point was, simply, that you have knowledge, moral knowledge, that is derivable neither from any of your five senses nor from all of them together.

Suppose that I carry a .38special in my purse 24/7, is that mean that I have a lethal weapon and will kill an innocent being?

Of course not. Have I said anything otherwise?

Yes, DP, my MIND tells me that! If I didn't have a mind I wouldn't be writing to you, like all of you (like it or not), I process all the information through my senses, so far my senses served me well.

But -- and I'll attempt, now, to make my point a second time -- you don't receive moral information through your senses. Honesty isn't an aroma. Kindness isn't scratchy. Courage isn't triangular. Loyalty doesn't have a loud Latin beat. Mercy doesn't taste like chicken.

[cjcampbell]

I cannot fathom how I once got baptized into LDS faith but I did and believed in it.

As the years slowly passed I figured out things.

I am reading your posts and thinking, why are they not able to use the same logic and deduce;

A- There's really nothing out there that we can sense beyond our bodily perceptions.

With which bodily perception do you sense love? Hate? With which bodily perception do you care about those around you? How do you measure it? Let us suppose that we are, as skeptics suggest, merely sacks of chemicals. Why would one sack of chemicals care what happens to another. Why would a two-legged sack of chemical enjoy, or even perceive, a four-legged sack of chemicals that jumps up on its lap and licks its face? Why would a sack of chemicals wonder whether there are other similar sacks on other planets? Why would a sack of chemicals even care that there ARE other planets? How do you sense curiosity? How do you measure it? How do you sense learning? How do you sense your own thought? Can you feel it? Touch it? Taste it? Hear it? See it? Smell it? What makes you believe that you think? DesCartes begged the question. He assumed that if he thought, that there must be a thinker, proving his own existence. But he proved nothing of the kind. How did he know that he thought? How do you know that you yourself exist? The senses can be deceived. With what sense do you know that you exist?

B- Why do we believe other peoples experiences when nothing of that sort ever happens to you?

Why do you assume that nothing of the sort ever happens to you? Or to me? Can you believe that the Eiffel Tower exists? How about the rice terraces of Banaue, the Philippines? Have you seen them? More people have probably reported UFOS than have probably seen some of the more remote wonders of the world. Why do you believe the latter and not the former?

C-Why miraculous things always so conveniently happen when you are not around to witness them?

Why do you assume this? Why do you think that people do not experience miraculous things? I expect miraculous things.

D-Why an average person (like young Joseph Smith in his time) will not arise and lead the Church as it happened in the past?

What is extraordinary about Gordon B. Hinckley? Or Thomas S. Monson? or any of the other leaders of the Church?

Instead of relying in spiritual payoffs which are so precarious and futile, I (unfortunately) have to put my faith in my SUV to get out of a calamity, A GPS, to guide me in Utah's harsh deserts, a phone which I can use in emergency since no prayer got me out of any trouble. The fact is that none of us are any more special than anybody else, why should God save me and let hundred others starve and let them die by incredibly asinine ways.

Why not? Who on earth has not died? You will die. I will die. We all will die. What makes you think you are special?

Why should I not get any any answers in spiritual matters? when I get most of other answers in conventional ways?

I think many people are in serious denial. They sense spiritual things constantly, but because they cannot measure these things they deny that they exist.

Why should I be punished for not believing into something that I've never seen or experienced?

How do you people confront with reality and still believe what you believe?

I do not believe that you will be punished for anything that you have not experienced. As for reality, who is in denial? You insist on believing only in things which can be measured, which you have experienced for yourself. You deny the existence of anything beyond yourself. How can you believe even in scientific knowledge, then? Have you experienced all the lab results that scientists claim? Or do you just credulously believe them?

[Mighty Curelom]

Let us suppose that we are, as skeptics suggest, merely sacks of chemicals. Why would one sack of chemicals care what happens to another. Why would a two-legged sack of chemical enjoy, or even perceive, a four-legged sack of chemicals that jumps up on its lap and licks its face? Why would a sack of chemicals wonder whether there are other similar sacks on other planets? Why would a sack of chemicals even care that there ARE other planets?

Why do we, as "sacks of chemicals" do these things? Because that's what happens when chemicals are arranged in a certain configuration colloquially known as a "person." When matter is arranged in a different configuration, it behaves differently. Try this experiment: put a laughing, sniffing, tasting, thinking, perceiving person in a big blender, and run it on puree for 30 seconds. The fact that you now have 200 pounds of unthinking ground meat where you once had a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person should demonstrate the importance of configuration when it comes to the properties of matter.

[cjcampbell]

Why do we, as "sacks of chemicals" do these things? Because that's what happens when chemicals are arranged in a certain configuration colloquially known as a "person." When matter is arranged in a different configuration, it behaves differently. Try this experiment: put a laughing, sniffing, tasting, thinking, perceiving person in a big blender, and run it on puree for 30 seconds. The fact that you now have 200 pounds of unthinking ground meat where you once had a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person should demonstrate the importance of configuration when it comes to the properties of matter.

Begging the question. What evolutionary advantage is there to wondering whether other sacks of chemicals are on other planets? Why should a sack of chemicals wonder about God? Indeed, why not put everybody into a blender? What is the difference? In the end, if the skeptics are right, the universe will collapse on itself, all things will be destroyed, and nothing you or I do will matter at all. Everything will be extinct. There will be no monuments, no legacy. So what advantage is there to having a sack of chemicals exist even now?

[jerryp48]

Jerry

Thanks for your revealing statement.

PS: What did you have in mind as an "Answer"?

Do you have any?

I hate contributing when I feel like my deepest sentiments will be glossed over and dismissed but here goes.

Were it not for my Saul/Alma the younger-like conversion I would be in your shoes. No I didn't have a vision but I did have an unmistakable manifestation and my life was changed in an instant.

I really don't know why you haven't had a miracle in your life and I won't condescend to say that you lack faith. Certainly your burden though is lighter than mine.

If I had to rely on reason alone I would share your sentiments. I envy your position. On the one hand I've had confirmation that God lives, that the Book of Mormon is His word, and that He sent me on a mission and yet I'm burdened on the other with Mormon conundrums for which I have no reasonable response. In many cases I could argue the critics viewpoint far better.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Mighty Curelom]

What evolutionary advantage is there to wondering whether other sacks of chemicals are on other planets?

Probably none. But there is plenty evolutionary advantage to having a large brain. One side effect of a brain that's big enough and smart enough to make and use tools, cooperate socially, and develop culture (all of which are evolutionarily advantageous), is the ability to think about esoteric things. Asking what advantage there is to thinking about "whether other sacks of chemicals are on other planets" is like asking what advantage a giraffe gets from the ability to fit more spots on its long neck.

Indeed, why not put everybody into a blender? What is the difference?

I don't want to be put in a blender, and that's reason enough for me.

So what advantage is there to having a sack of chemicals exist even now?

If by "advantage," you mean "purpose," the answer is simple: to exist as long as we can. During that existence, things will happen to us that we find meaningful. When we die and cease to exist, we'll stop having meaningful experiences, but the fact that we stop having experiences doesn't mean we never had them, or that we can't have them while we do exist. There is nothing about the ceasing of existence that retroactively negates meaning and purpose once an agent dies. Unless you have a perfect memory, I can guarantee that you've forgotten some experiences that have occurred during your life. Does that mean they never happened? Would you conclude that the purpose and meaning you felt at the time was counterfeit?

[Ray Agostini]

Why do we, as "sacks of chemicals" do these things? Because that's what happens when chemicals are arranged in a certain configuration colloquially known as a "person." When matter is arranged in a different configuration, it behaves differently. Try this experiment: put a laughing, sniffing, tasting, thinking, perceiving person in a big blender, and run it on puree for 30 seconds. The fact that you now have 200 pounds of unthinking ground meat where you once had a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person should demonstrate the importance of configuration when it comes to the properties of matter.

You are a real gem, MC. So if we are all "colloquial persons", and "200 pounds of unthinking ground meat", eventually, what gives us intelligence while the "ground meat" is alive? What on earth would "infiltrate" this "ground meat" to produce something like an Einstein? Chance?

[Hammer]

When I hear somebody elses spiritual experiences; I understand and respect them that IT HAPPENED TO THEIR MINDS.

If they want to prove me that it happened and further their cause, they have to do better than reciting.

That's all.

So what would you have for proof? Clouds have the same random electrical impulses as the brain. How do you prove the cloud is not a thinking entity? Or is? There are some things that are unprovable except through extrordinary means. God is that means. If you want to deny His existence or interaction with humans, you will be in limbo for a very long time. Denying the very source of the answers and proof is a sure way to shut the door to ever receiving proof.

[cjcampbell]

Unless you have a perfect memory, I can guarantee that you've forgotten some experiences that have occurred during your life. Does that mean they never happened? Would you conclude that the purpose and meaning you felt at the time was counterfeit?

It is possible that these experiences will be recalled later. There is much that we do not understand about memory.

Given a deterministic POV of the universe, though, why bother to convince 'Mormons' that they are wrong? If the universe is truly deterministic, can they help themselves? OTOH, can you help yourself? Does it not seem silly that we are forever locked in an argument which benefits neither one of us, simply because of some deterministic algorithm determined eons ago at the time of the Big Bang?

[solomarineris]

But -- and I'll attempt, now, to make my point a second time -- you don't receive moral information through your senses. Honesty isn't an aroma. Kindness isn't scratchy. Courage isn't triangular. Loyalty doesn't have a loud Latin beat. Mercy doesn't taste like chicken.

DCP,

I do indeed receive such behaviors through my senses and my learning.

Say...from my parents, the people I am associated with etc..

I didn't come to this world, endowed by these all good virtues...You , me, and everybody else has the potential of doing good or harm.

Kindness,honesty and all those virtues you claim as being not aromas,

what are you suggesting, we are pre-endowed with these virtues from getgo?

If Mercy tasted like a chicken and I didn't like the taste, then probably I would not be

merciful

This doesn't mean I have all the answers, there are lots of intangibles, that is why I remain a skeptic of what you are claiming.

[Zoidberg]

If by "advantage," you mean "purpose," the answer is simple: to exist as long as we can. During that existence, things will happen to us that we find meaningful.

Yes, I would say that the search for meaning and rationality helps us feel in control of the environment, which is very advantageous to one's survival. That reminds me of Skinner's "superstitious" pigeons. Treats were deposited into their cages at random intervals; the pigeons, in the meantime, were busy with their usual pigeon activities, such as cleaning themselves, standing with one foot up, pecking things etc. If it so happened that receiving a treat coincided on multiple occasions with a specific behavior, the pigeons concluded that the treat was given as a reward for that behavior. So they started exhibiting that behavior whenever they wanted a treat (which was pretty much all the time). Who's to say that's not exactly what we are doing? The pigeons' superstitious behavior had nothing to do with them receiving a treat. And I am still a theist despite realizing all that. How's that for meaning and rationality?

[Hammer]

Yes, I would say that the search for meaning and rationality helps us feel in control of the environment, which is very advantageous to one's survival. That reminds me of Skinner's "superstitious" pigeons. Treats were deposited into their cages at random intervals; the pigeons, in the meantime, were busy with their usual pigeon activities, such as cleaning themselves, standing with one foot up, pecking things etc. If it so happened that receiving a treat coincided on multiple occasions with a specific behavior, the pigeons concluded that the treat was given as a reward for that behavior. So they started exhibiting that behavior whenever they wanted a treat (which was pretty much all the time). Who's to say that's not exactly what we are doing? The pigeons' superstitious behavior had nothing to do with them receiving a treat. And I am still a theist despite realizing all that. How's that for meaning and rationality?

I am to say, that is how we act on occassions. Otherwise there would be no commerse. However, when it come to God, He doesn't reward everything we do on a one to one basis. Nor does He reward in such a regularity that we can connect good behavior with obedience to eternal laws.

God tests and tries our resolve to worship and follow Him with lapses and long waiting periods where only faith supports our beliefs.

[Zoidberg]

I am to say, that is how we act on occassions. Otherwise there would be no commerse. However, when it come to God, He doesn't reward everything we do on a one to one basis. Nor does He reward in such a regularity that we can connect good behavior with obedience to eternal laws.

People are prone to interpret good things ("blessings") that happen to them as rewards from God for something they've done. I'm sure you've seen a lot of this. I only had enough money to either buy groceries or pay tithing... so I paid tithing.. and then I got this check in the mail.. I realized it was a test from God and now I have such a strong testimony of tithing...etc. This is typical superstitious pigeon reasoning (no offense to anyone, I do that, too). But in reality we don't know why some people have certain blessings/hardships, and the others don't. So I say whatever happens to people should not be judged by us as indicative of their previous behavior. Unless it's something predictable, like "This person is going to the bathroom. That must man they've had something to eat today." Even then, maybe they are going to the bathroom to check their make-up. Who knows.

[MorningStar]

A- There's really nothing out there that we can sense beyond our bodily perceptions.

Not true.

B- Why do we believe other peoples experiences when nothing of that sort ever happens to you?

Because it does happen to me.

C-Why miraculous things always so conveniently happen when you are not around to witness them?

They do happen when I'm around.

D-Why an average person (like young Joseph Smith in his time) will not arise and lead the Church as it happened in the past?

We have wonderful leaders today who guide us.

The above is why it's easy for me to believe in the church.

[Daniel Peterson]

I do indeed receive such behaviors through my senses and my learning.

Say...from my parents, the people I am associated with etc..

A number of studies seem to indicate that even exceedingly young children -- and even apes -- have a sense of "fairness," etc.

Now, however, that you know that moral values are simply things that you've heard from your parents and the people around you, why should they have any hold over you? Do you feel bound by your parents' taste in music? Are you obligated to share the political views of the people you associate with? Your parents probably encouraged you to eat your vegetables. I assume that you did that without resistance or question?

there are lots of intangibles, that is why I remain a skeptic of what you are claiming.

Actually -- ironically enough -- your position seems to be that there are no intangibles.

[solomarineris]

A number of studies seem to indicate that even exceedingly young children -- and even apes -- have a sense of "fairness," etc.

Now, however, that you know that moral values are simply things that you've heard from your parents and the people around you, why should they have any hold over you? Do you feel bound by your parents' taste in music? Are you obligated to share the political views of the people you associate with? Your parents probably encouraged you to eat your vegetables. I assume that you did that without resistance or question?

Actually -- ironically enough --

Indeed since you have the answers for the Truth people like me should act irresponsibly, treat their employees, associates dishonetstly, those kind of virtues are reserved for people like you, who holds the commandments and keep the letter of the law? Is that what you are saying?

Actually I did not eat my vegetables and put up a big fight, but it wasn't hard to understand not to hurt anybody for no reason. Your logic is so impaired through your indoctrination, you cannot comprehend how a person can be honest and decent without any religious moral compass.

DP

your position seems to be that there are no intangibles.

Funny you'd assess that on my behalf, weren't you the one other day (on another board) who complained that Tal Bachman already assessed whatever you might say?

I'd suggest you do not assume anything about me as I don't about you.

[ERMD]

DCP,

I do indeed receive such behaviors through my senses and my learning.

Say...from my parents, the people I am associated with etc..

I didn't come to this world, endowed by these all good virtues...You , me, and everybody else has the potential of doing good or harm.

Kindness,honesty and all those virtues you claim as being not aromas,

what are you suggesting, we are pre-endowed with these virtues from getgo?

If Mercy tasted like a chicken and I didn't like the taste, then probably I would not be

merciful

This doesn't mean I have all the answers, there are lots of intangibles, that is why I remain a skeptic of what you are claiming.

"...lots of intangibles..."?

Your initial premise suggested that there are no intangibles. If you cannot detect it with your senses, then it doesn't exist, right?

You can't have it both ways.

[Daniel Peterson]

Indeed since you have the answers for the Truth people like me should act irresponsibly, treat their employees, associates dishonetstly, those kind of virtues are reserved for people like you, who holds the commandments and keep the letter of the law? Is that what you are saying?

No, that's precisely not what I'm saying.

It's exactly what I've said I'm not saying.

I'm not saying it.

And, in case that's not clear enough, let me say that I'm not saying that.

Your logic is so impaired through your indoctrination, you cannot comprehend how a person can be honest and decent without any religious moral compass.

Sigh. Have I pointed out yet that I didn't say that?

Just in case I haven't, let me say, as clearly as I can, that I didn't say that: I didn't say that.

Okay?

your position seems to be that there are no intangibles.

Funny you'd assess that on my behalf, weren't you the one other day (on another board) who complained that Tal Bachman already assessed whatever you might say?

I'd suggest you do not assume anything about me as I don't about you.

Your position is -- didn't you say this? -- that all knowledge is derived from the five senses. My position is that this is clearly untrue. And I've offered what I've called "moral knowledge" as an instance of knowledge that is not derived, and is not derivable, from the five senses. It is not tangible, and it comes from nothing tangible. Neither is it auditory, visible, flavorful, nor aromatic. It is, in other words, non-sensory.

[kingonion]

You are a real gem, MC. So if we are all "colloquial persons", and "200 pounds of unthinking ground meat", eventually, what gives us intelligence while the "ground meat" is alive? What on earth would "infiltrate" this "ground meat" to produce something like an Einstein? Chance?

What is wrong with chance? Is not that as plausible? The universe has been around billions and billions of years. That's a heck of a lot of time to come up with something such as ourselves. Why do people throw chance out the window so dimissively? Why be so unobjective about it all??

MC makes an excellent point here. If you believe in the "soul", this "infiltration" into the human person, then when would you say you are really cognitive of anything. You wouldn't say you were at 2 days gestation, nor would you at 15 weeks. Who knows when it all comes into play. Point is, you're not structually physiologically ready to perform these actions until connections are made and such. We really are beings that are made of the elements found in and on the earth and cosmos.

[Uncle Dale]

What is wrong with chance? Is not that as plausible? The universe has been around billions and billions of years. That's a heck of a lot of time to come up with something such as ourselves. Why do people throw chance out the window so dimissively? Why be so unobjective about it all??

Good point -- I suppose that "intelligence" can come about as the result of a billions-of-years physical

"natural selection," coupled with social selection, coupled with a certain measure of random chance.

I am not so certain that is the case for self-awareness, however. The ability to reflect upon our own

actions and question our own origins, etc. , is a degree of consciousness I am not willing to relegate to

evolution and random chance.

Then again, I'm in no position to explain where higher-consciousness comes from, or whether or not

it exists in all life-forms in a rudimentary way. I am not talking about stimulus--response here, but

postulating a self-awareness rather different from it.

That much said, my working hypothesis is, that self-awareness is "built into" existence, and is not a

result of evolution and random chance.

UD

[kingonion]

Your position is -- didn't you say this? -- that all knowledge is derived from the five senses. My position is that this is clearly untrue. And I've offered what I've called "moral knowledge" as an instance of knowledge that is not derived, and is not derivable, from the five senses. It is not tangible, and it comes from nothing tangible. Neither is it auditory, visible, flavorful, nor aromatic. It is, in other words, non-sensory.

Everyones morals are different though. Do you speak of moral knowledge as if it is the same for everyone?

You mention even apes and children seem to have an inherrent knowledge of fairness. This, however, isn't seen in every ape and every child. There is always going to be the complete opposite in that population of being "unfair".

Chimps and children are also inherently born with many other emotions and "knowledges" but it doesn't mean that there is necessarily a spiritual connection to it. Evolution is real, natural instincts are still within us.

[kingonion]

Good point -- I suppose that "intelligence" can come about as the result of a billions-of-years physical

"natural selection," coupled with social selection, coupled with a certain measure of random chance.

I am not so certain that is the case for self-awareness, however. The ability to reflect upon our own

actions and question our own origins, etc. , is a degree of consciousness I am not willing to relegate to

evolution and random chance.

Then again, I'm in no position to explain where higher-consciousness comes from, or whether or not

it exists in all life-forms in a rudimentary way. I am not talking about stimulus--response here, but

postulating a self-awareness rather different from it.

That much said, my working hypothesis is, that self-awareness is "built into" existence, and is not a

result of evolution and random chance.

UD

I agree with you. While I'm comfortable with my own understanding of what is, I'm also uncomfortable with it as well. Life is so undefinitive, how could it be anyother way?

I just struggle with settling with anyone train of thought

[solomarineris]

And I've offered what I've called "moral knowledge" as an instance of knowledge that is not derived, and is not derivable, from the five senses. It is not tangible, and it comes from nothing tangible. Neither is it auditory, visible, flavorful, nor aromatic. It is, in other words, non-sensory.

Well please accept my humble response; this is big baloney. Where do you think I did acquire my morality? From Ten Commandments, from reading Bible?

Even if I've got it from my mom or dad I still had a choice to do right or wrong.

All those senses you posess help you to create what you are. It's called life I do not need 613 commandments to discern what is good what is bad. If you feel like you need that kind of help you are welcome to. Most of those commandments are/were (besides being bad) asinine. Why would God prohibit eating pork in the beginning and end it up prohibiting wine or cofee?

Most of the stuff is so irrelevant to one's daily life one could have much more quality life without following any of those precepts.

If you ask me they are mostly control&coercion measures to keep the masses in line.

But like everyone else on this board I respect individual's faith.

There is room for everybody on this Planet so far.

[Daniel Peterson]

What is wrong with chance? Is not that as plausible? The universe has been around billions and billions of years. That's a heck of a lot of time to come up with something such as ourselves.

Actually, there's considerable dispute about this. Life seems to have appeared on earth rather quickly after its appearance was physically possible -- so quickly that this has actually become a scientific problem in need of a solution: Why so quick?