Does Science Have All The Answers?

[Honorentheos]

You know, MFB, one of the most interesting things about leaving the LDS faith for me has been the paradigm shift in the simple way I think. Honestly, we are very much like Wittgenstein's lion in that the strong LDS view of truth, and subsequently "science", is fundamentally different because the route to obtaining truth varies and the nature of truth also varies from the secular view. There is what I will call a weak LDS view, which is more objective, but not the norm precisely because it differs from the premise of how one can obtain the "truth" directly from God himself. It's interesting to me, now, that by simply being LDS one may HAVE to have a certain view of how truth may be obtained and verified as well as defined.

I think I have been very careful to use certain language through-out this thread. I never, that I recall, said anything was "impossible"but tried to differentiate between what was substantiated by modern science. And by modern science, I mean the knowledge we have today. I know the truths we have today will change. The model we have the universe as defined by science is imperfect and will have to evolve if we are to learn anything more. Right now, we don't have it all figured out. For this reason, I keep having a hard time with responded to you in that I feel you are speaking past what I said and are responding to what you heard. I see them as two different things.

For example, the question of if I would say "sending pictures through the air was impossible 100 years ago" does not seem, in my mind, like something I have said in this thread at any time. When I say that the LDS view of a material God is in direct conflict with modern science, it's a statement made specifically in the current context. I think I even suggested in one post that the current understanding of time will likely change. But my point then, and now again, is that the view of God espoused under LDS theology was fully compatible with the physics of JS's day. It is the advances in science that have lead to the conflict and it is reasonable that the trend will favor the furthering of this condition.

Maybe it won't. But the entire discussion has been about how some here see no conflicts between science and their theology. There is.

I know you don't see a conflict, and I guess there isn't much else to say about it really. It's there. My evidence for it has been presented through-out this thread and has not been direct addressed let alone refuted. The closest anyone has come is to suggest that alternate dimensions offer an out, which I think I addressed by showing this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dimension may be as well as what it would mean for any theology if this were the case.

I think we have a hard time distinguishing between us what is meant by subjective vs first person verification of an objective experiment. It's like asking if a person can have anything other than a subjective view of anything. I know you and I should agree that this is simply not accurate by definition. The difference is that a person can gain a first-person, still subjective, but verifying experience of what science is defining. By definition, a scientific theory that is supported by experiment should have controls and be repeatable. Most of us do not repeat the experiments, but most things get repeated and most of us exercise a bit of faith on the things we have never verified.

I do not think this is true under things that are purely the purview of religion. I have been a very active believing member of the LDS faith. I have tried the experiments you have described. I have first-person knowledge of the results. The thing is, they may or may not be the same as the results you had. Their both subjective, as they have to be, and also variable.

Why? Because the person is the subject of the experiment and the nature of the person at some non-universal level is very much the material being both experimented on and experimented with. Too many variables and too much variety in the results. I sat, as a missionary, and convinced a person that until they lived like a member they weren't going to receive the witness they were still not having despite praying very hard and reading and basically following all of the general commitments we used back then. We got her away from her evangelical friends, got her involved in the local ward, and basically made a member of her. Eventually, she received her witness. She also married my companion about six months after we both had finished our two years. And what does that mean? Don't know. It's her subjective experience. Just like your experiences are of what you may call God, and I won't disagree. But I challenge you to show that this is only correctly understood through the LDS narrative without using LDS/Christian-based narrative builders. As some very pro-lds posters seem to like to point out all too often, only LDS can understand LDS.

Anyway, I still think we are Wittgensteining ourselves to death.

[Jeff K.]

The silly thing is to assert that what is substantiated by science presently is what must be, it limits ones ability to see change or see new vistas. Imagine if Einstein simply saw what was substantiated by Newtonian science?

When I say that the LDS view of a material God is in direct conflict with modern science, it's a statement made specifically in the current context. I think I even suggested in one post that the current understanding of time will likely change. But my point then, and now again, is that the view of God espoused under LDS theology was fully compatible with the physics of JS's day. It is the advances in science that have lead to the conflict and it is reasonable that the trend will favor the furthering of this condition.

Given theories along the lines of wormhole theory, tachyons, the ability to compress space in front and expand it behind (faster than light without breaking Einsteins laws), I would say that even under the current context of scient it is incorrect.

I see your evidence and position as being incorrect in its statement. It should not have been about the conflict of science with the LDS view of God, but the conflict more correctly would have been described as the issue between present technology and the our concept of God and his abilities. It certainly diminishes the argument making it almost irrelevant, but it also creates a more accurate statement than the one you were promoting.

To paraphrase Wittingstein:

What can be said "should" be said clearly and what cannot be stated clearly should be passed over in silence.

[notHagoth7]

I know you don't see a conflict, and I guess there isn't much else to say about it really. It's there. My evidence for it has been presented through-out this thread and has not been direct addressed let alone refuted. The closest anyone has come is to suggest that alternate dimensions offer an out, which I think I addressed by showing this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dimension may be as well as what it would mean for any theology if this were the case.

Actually, you did not address it. Because your use of "dimension" and mine carried two separate meanings, in two separate contexts. You conflated them. I made it clear that such a dimension (or reality, or parallel universe) would likely, in my view, resemble this one. Very much.

So, for the record, you plucked a single word out of context, and overlooked entire paragraphs which had defined it. Perhaps in a rush to dismiss it. ?

I'm not overly concerned that you agree with what I said - since it was merely an initial framework, a tentative suggestion, or a possible way of likening scripture to our current understanding of physics and the cosmos. But I prefer not to have my meaning misconstrued.

Fair enough?

[mfbukowski]

I think we have a hard time distinguishing between us what is meant by subjective vs first person verification of an objective experiment. It's like asking if a person can have anything other than a subjective view of anything. I know you and I should agree that this is simply not accurate by definition. The difference is that a person can gain a first-person, still subjective, but verifying experience of what science is defining. By definition, a scientific theory that is supported by experiment should have controls and be repeatable. Most of us do not repeat the experiments, but most things get repeated and most of us exercise a bit of faith on the things we have never verified.

What I am describing as a "first person" statement is a statement about my own body and/or mental states, like "I am hungry", "I love you", "My head itches", "I know that I am seeing a red car" or "I know the church is true". These statements may be true or false, but they are not about a shared reality, they are statements about things only I can know that I know.

Statements about a shared reality, or 3rd person statements, are statements that we both can test and know, like how much water weighs, the distance to the moon, and what color a car is. (Notice only I can know that I am seeing a red car, but we may both agree that we are seeing a red car. I can't know that you know that you are seeing a red car, but we can agree that THAT is one, over there)

I think religious statements are fundamentally first person, subjective statements, or a statement about MY mental state, not about what is a "shared", observable reality. Saying that "God has a body of flesh and bones" is fundamentally saying that "I believe or I know that God has a body of flesh and bones". One can agree with that statement or not agree with it, but it is not testable in any way, any more than one can verify the truth of the statement "I love you", or "My toe hurts".

Another way of saying this is to say that statements about God are not scientific statements. They are not verifiable by science. They have nothing to do with science, and so can neither conflict nor agree with science.

All we can know is experience; I am not saying that "there is no external world" - just that we cannot know anything about it independent of our experience. And there are really only two ways of knowing about our experience - what I personally am experiencing or have experienced, and what others have told me they have experienced, in a science textbook or in any other way. Just think about it. That is the only way you know anything - what you feel and know yourself, and what others have told you, which you believe.

So all we have as "reality" is our experience of it, and language to express it. And all of that keeps evolving. Reality itself keeps evolving. Reality is a process.

So we think with language, which is a social construct, and we only know what we experience which is largely also socially conditioned. That's why the "laws" of the universe change, because "we", as represented in the total of the collective experiences of humanity, have made them up.

So saying that what we know about God as a personal feeling conflicts with what we know collectively is like saying that my knowing that I love my wife somehow conflicts with knowing that penguins only life in Antarctica.

There is no conflict - the two statements have nothing to do with each other.

But someone may say -- "AHA! So God is not 'real' to you!"

No, he is a real experience like all others. And he is as important to me as my love of my wife is, and even more so, because I have known him longer and he is more a part of me.

Does that help?

[Honorentheos]

Actually, you did not address it. Because your use of "dimension" and mine carried two separate meanings, in two separate contexts.

Perhaps you could demonstrate through some non-science fiction source that the term, "dimension" as you used it is also understood in a scientific sense as you seem to feel it could be used?

I contend that you used dimension incorrectly - by definition. You instead are referring to an alternative but potentially similar universe. I do not think I misconstrued your POV, but was showing that there is a discrete definition of what dimensions actual are and what you described is not a different dimension from ours.

Thanks,

[Honorentheos]

What I am describing as a "first person" statement is a statement about my own body and/or mental states, like "I am hungry", "I love you", "My head itches", "I know that I am seeing a red car" or "I know the church is true". These statements may be true or false, but they are not about a shared reality, they are statements about things only I can know that I know....

So saying that what we know about God as a personal feeling conflicts with what we know collectively is like saying that my knowing that I love my wife somehow conflicts with knowing that penguins only life in Antarctica.

There is no conflict - the two statements have nothing to do with each other.

But someone may say -- "AHA! So God is not 'real' to you!"

No, he is a real experience like all others. And he is as important to me as my love of my wife is, and even more so, because I have known him longer and he is more a part of me.

Does that help?

MFB,

It's unfortunate that we seem to be talking around each other, or at least have been. There is very little you say above which is a point of contention for me. I thought I was saying something similar before but I guess not (beetle!)

I see it like this, MFB. The things you described above are both first person, because the effected state we are calling "knowledge" exists in in your mind. And they are subjective for all of the reasons you described above. I think we agree on this.

The discussion on this thread has been interesting to me for a reason that plays into this, actually. The OP, and the thread title, make a statement that attracted my attention precisely because the question, "Does Science Have All the Answers?" is like asking, "Does Baskin-Robbins have all the flavors?" To ask it implies someone really just doesn't understand ice cream or doesn't get out much. It's one of those categorical errors. It also implies that the asker thinks their alternative source for answers actually does "have all the answers" and that this invalidates science as a source because it can't compete. Personally, I see that as overstating the types of knowledge religion provides as well. Like mistakenly thinking that because you can mix flavors and add candy bars at Cold Stone, THEY have all the flavors. Simply put, it's kind of ignorant and wouldn't have been worth posting on because people who think like that tend to own stock in Cold Stone and probably don't want all the flavors because they always order the same thing any way.

But as I was reading it, more than a few LDS posters were stating that there was "no conflict between science and their religion". I found that simple contention odd, as it seemed like a personal preference to see the two absolutely reconcilable when they are not. They are two different things that address different aspects of the human condition. But since no one would accept that at face value, I provided an example, which I assumed was the same one Arc was pointing out. We ended up having different reasons for seeing this conflict as being the case which unfortunate led to a number of posts that required clarification on the differences between our positions. But the point is simply that the LDS faith is not fully reconcilable with modern science and there are areas of proven physics that make the existance of a physical, eternal God incompatible with the current model of the universe as we have it.

And that is important because the current model of the universe is the current boundary of actual science. Not the possible future boundary that you hope will reconcile the two again one day. And it even may happen. But that future, potential boundary isn't science. Not yet, and not certain that it ever will be. Science fiction? umm, if one is into alternate universes and willing to believe that there may be a Princess Leah in their future galaxy far, far, away. But as you and I have discussed, it's unlikely that will EVER be part of science because science has a distinct process that requires certain things to get past the theoretical stage and into the realm of actual accepted scientific theory. It has to be observable in some way, even by influence on observable things before it can be partially accepted as possible. These "ideas" being offered to reconcile the two realms in right here, right now, are just patching the two back together like Peter Pan trying to use soap to stick his shadow back on. Doing so calls into question how often one uses soap for it's intended purpose.

So why care that modern science and LDS theology are not currently reconciled? It doesn't bother many posters here that evolutionary theory contradicts LDS tradition, or that geology shows the global flood to be unlikely along with the story of Noah. They are two different things, let them be that. Science doesn't even always agree with itself. Relativists are in contraction with quantum physicists at almost every point and it's accepted because people understand that one works in one setting and the other at a different scale. Science works when we are trying to get past our subjective views of the world and are seeking to define the points of common nature that may actually be "observer independent". Religion, as you aptly point out, deals specifically with the realm of meaning and those subjective states of the human mind that are just as valid for the individual human being but may not be universal or objectively verifiable.

There are real points where I think science and religion come in real, important conflict but this is when one is being pushed into the realm of the other. I think one is understating the signficance of what it meant for a man to stand on Mount Olympus for ancient Greek theology just as I think one may not take in the full impacts that the conflict with physics and the LDS physical God may mean. But it won't matter to most for the same reasons that the changed in our understanding of the flood or the origins of species diversity have not changed the significance of religious meaning for most believers. They fill two different niches in human needs.

I just think all roads don't lead to either Rome or SLC. Again, that seems to be a point of preferrence and giving religion a postion that it actually doesn't fill - a universal postion in the human condition as opposed to the spiritual more general understanding one sees in the world. Unless one lives in Utah, and travels on I-15 a lot. Then I guess one could understand why a person is mistake in thinking that all roads lead to SLC.

I only contend with religion in that I see the certitude it engenders in people being disproportionate to the role it fills and the justifiable part it plays in a person's life. But that is tangential. Anyway, maybe we can agree we are talking about a beetle, even if we can't open the box yet.

[notHagoth7]

Perhaps you could demonstrate through some non-science fiction source that the term, "dimension" as you used it is also understood in a scientific sense as you seem to feel it could be used?

I prefer to speak in the vernacular.

And I placed the word alongside other terms, with "/" to make sure it was quite clear what I meant by its use.

If you object to common usage, that's little more than hair-splitting.

(Offender for a word and all that.)

I contend that you used dimension incorrectly - by definition.

If I was speaking in a room full of scientists, that would be a reasonable distinction. But I'm not.

So there's no need for ivory-tower distinctions in a more general, public discussion.

You instead are referring to an alternative but potentially similar universe. I do not think I misconstrued your POV, but was showing that there is a discrete definition of what dimensions actual are and what you described is not a different dimension from ours.

Whether it aligns with industry jargon or not is of less interest to me than if it's understood by the typical forum participant.

When you read such things, feel free to replace the word you object to with something that matches the meaning clearly provided in my context. (As if there was confusion about what I actually meant.)

And for clarity, this isn't about me being right.

This is about your assertion that there MUST be a conflict.

So let's not pretend that disagreement over the use of a single term demonstrates your point.

The only conflict there is semantics.

[Jeff K.]

I didn't realize the nobel prize winners in physics and their ideas in theoretical physics were really just science fiction classes. MIT must immediately be informed!!!

[Honorentheos]

I'll start with the bottom first, as it is more relevant -

And for clarity, this isn't about me being right.

This is about your assertion that there MUST be a conflict.

So let's not pretend that disagreement over the use of a single term demonstrates your point.

The only conflict there is semantics.

It's not about your use of the term "dimensions". Its about a fundamental aspect of relativity (the nature of time as it relates to matter) and that this is a conflict with the ability of a being to be both eternal (outside of time) in a space-time that has a beginning, and material.

Your argument was that a theoretical position could exist where God is not part of our "dimension" or "universe" and can pop in at will, thus removing him/she/it from the constraints of modern science. All you've said is, "This doesn't matter because God MAY not have to play by the rules, and here is one way that MAY happen."

There is a conflict, and you just side-stepped it. That's about it. You didn't show there is no conflict, your opinion is that this doesn't have to apply to God. It's religion saying it doesn't have to play by the rules that science has defined.

Once we start using this type of logic, you can never demonstrate that there is a conflict. Like MFB's example of the Greek who says the Greek Gods have willed themselves invisible to explain why they weren't on Mount Olympus, it becomes an elementary school game.

It makes me appreciate conversations with people who at least agree that language matters. Otherwise, we now can not only disregard any supported scientific theory by speculating that some idea presented in an episode of Star Trek gives us an out, we can also say whatever we want and claim our own definition of the matter is sound and supportive, so again, "I'm like rubber..."

We can't agree on what is scientific, we can't agree on what it means when we describe something as an alternative dimension or parallel universe, why should we agree to even converse at all at this rate?

We can't communicate enough to really do so with these parameters.

[Honorentheos]

I didn't realize the nobel prize winners in physics and their ideas in theoretical physics were really just science fiction classes. MIT must immediately be informed!!!

Tell you what, Jeff K.,

Specifiy who you mean specifically and I will email them with the question of if they would place whatever theory you are refering to at the same level as our understanding of the nature of time as it relates to matter under relativity. All you have to do is be specific and I'll do the work for you and their response will be posted here when I receive it.

[mfbukowski]

Anyway, maybe we can agree we are talking about a beetle, even if we can't open the box yet.

Lest others think we have totally lost it, let me post the beetle reference.

Well there is definitely a bug in communications here, but I am not even sure if it is a beetle at this point.

So you are not buying the idea that the statement "God exists" (pick any predicate you like- "God has a body" would do fine--) is the exact logical equivalent to "I believe God exists / has a body"?

My point is that those statements are about my beliefs, not about scientific observations.

[Honorentheos]

So you are not buying the idea that the statement "God exists" (pick any predicate you like- "God has a body" would do fine--) is the exact logical equivalent to "I believe God exists / has a body"?

My point is that those statements are about my beliefs, not about scientific observations.

Agreed. And if I were to ask you why this has significance to you (i.e - "I believe that God exists/has a body") I am sure you have an answer. I doubt that the entire discussion over the nature of Physics and time has any bearing whatsoever on that meaning either.

And that is fine. Most people don't know how their SECULAR lives are impacted on a day-to-day by relativity. Why should it matter to one's religious belief?

But, always a but - the aspect of science being outside of this personal meaning provided by religion is a critical aspect of science. Something is scientific precisely because the process used to identify it has been evolved to cut away at our subjective nature and seek for the universal aspect of things that get as close to objective "truth" as we can get. Which isn't the same as "reality" in the abstract, but only in the pragmatic sense we have been using it (I think).

And right now, I honestly think the issue with my statement regarding a literal physical God and modern physics is pretty cut-and-dry of subjective inference. I also don't think it matters a fig to anyone because it is kind of out there in practical terms. If there was no God, literally, I think that the variety of things we do have that we collectively could call God are filling in just fine. It doesn't matter to reality.

But there is a conflict. There just is. And the more I think about it, Arc's point was too easily dismissed. I have to say this discussion has broadened my perspective on the quest for the theory of everything. The more I think about the universe as a multi-dimensional "something", the more things start to make sense to me including entangled electrons and why they may act the way they do.

But that is also theoretical, not scientific. Yet.

[mfbukowski]

But there is a conflict. There just is. And the more I think about it, Arc's point was too easily dismissed. I have to say this discussion has broadened my perspective on the quest for the theory of everything. The more I think about the universe as a multi-dimensional "something", the more things start to make sense to me including entangled electrons and why they may act the way they do.

But that is also theoretical, not scientific. Yet.

Take a look at this article and tell me what you think.

Not surprisingly, I think my position is very close to that of our dear buddy Herr W.

[mfbukowski]

But, always a but - the aspect of science being outside of this personal meaning provided by religion is a critical aspect of science. Something is scientific precisely because the process used to identify it has been evolved to cut away at our subjective nature and seek for the universal aspect of things that get as close to objective "truth" as we can get. Which isn't the same as "reality" in the abstract, but only in the pragmatic sense we have been using it (I think).

And what is "objective truth"?

I think it is about as "real" as Santa Claus.

Seriously- this is the crux -- what IS "objective truth" for you?

You know you can't say "correspondence to reality" to me and get away with it. I don't believe in anything which cannot be experienced.

[Honorentheos]

Take a look at this article and tell me what you think.

Not surprisingly, I think my position is very close to that of our dear buddy Herr W.

Loved it. Curious what you read into it. My final impression was that the article's author was suggesting that a critical reading should be given, but that caution should be applied in understanding these interpretations of W's philosophy of religion as they called it.

Particular gems in my eyes -

"Helm notes that Wittgenstein treated belief in God as an assumption, a basic belief that creates a pattern into which other beliefs fit. Belief in God entails a "way of life" not a defensible or defeasible doctrinal position. Because of this, the existence of God as a belief is impervious to any outside criticism. When the scientist criticizes religious ideas of creation, for example, the religious observer fears no threat since the scientist is merely an adherent of a different "language-game" or a different way of talking about the world. Neither of these perspectives can be considered privileged since there is no objective way to judge between language-games. Within the "religious-game," we understand the meaning of creation. Within the "science-game," empirical evidence gives meaning to theory. There is no Archimedean point, as it were, from which to judge all systems."

I feel this is very close to what my point has been. And why I find it odd that so many are so strenuously contesting that there is a conflict between their religious view of God (as a corporal being) and modern science. Because one is an "epistemological relativist" as the article describes?

Other gem -

"Iakovos Vasiliou explores how evangelism in Wittgenstein's eyes means no more than attempting to get people to accept our language-game and our way of life. Reasons or justifications for belief can only be used within one's own game. Thus, in order to achieve conversions, we must persuade others to reject their entire view of the world and adopt ours, while admitting that our view is no more than an alternate interpretation or way of speaking. While this idea recognizes the importance of worldview in evangelism, it leaves out any tools for rational discussion of the truth! Apologetics is rendered irrelevant by this view. Instead of attempting to show why Christianity is true, according to proponents of Wittgensteinian religion, we must merely make it appealing."

Wow! Exactly right! I need to get a copy of this book. To say I am intrigued by this is an understatement.

[mfbukowski]

Loved it. Curious what you read into it. My final impression was that the article's author was suggesting that a critical reading should be given, but that caution should be applied in understanding these interpretations of W's philosophy of religion as they called it.

Particular gems in my eyes -

"Helm notes that Wittgenstein treated belief in God as an assumption, a basic belief that creates a pattern into which other beliefs fit. Belief in God entails a "way of life" not a defensible or defeasible doctrinal position. Because of this, the existence of God as a belief is impervious to any outside criticism. When the scientist criticizes religious ideas of creation, for example, the religious observer fears no threat since the scientist is merely an adherent of a different "language-game" or a different way of talking about the world. Neither of these perspectives can be considered privileged since there is no objective way to judge between language-games. Within the "religious-game," we understand the meaning of creation. Within the "science-game," empirical evidence gives meaning to theory. There is no Archimedean point, as it were, from which to judge all systems."

I feel this is very close to what my point has been. And why I find it odd that so many are so strenuously contesting that there is a conflict between their religious view of God (as a corporal being) and modern science. Because one is an "epistemological relativist" as the article describes?

Other gem -

"Iakovos Vasiliou explores how evangelism in Wittgenstein's eyes means no more than attempting to get people to accept our language-game and our way of life. Reasons or justifications for belief can only be used within one's own game. Thus, in order to achieve conversions, we must persuade others to reject their entire view of the world and adopt ours, while admitting that our view is no more than an alternate interpretation or way of speaking. While this idea recognizes the importance of worldview in evangelism, it leaves out any tools for rational discussion of the truth! Apologetics is rendered irrelevant by this view. Instead of attempting to show why Christianity is true, according to proponents of Wittgensteinian religion, we must merely make it appealing."

Wow! Exactly right! I need to get a copy of this book. To say I am intrigued by this is an understatement.

Well this just focuses on the beetle imo.

I love it for the same reasons you do, seeing it from the other point of view. Science and religion are two different language games with no possible conflict between them.

Of course the editor who wrote those words about Evangelism was an Evangelical who was trying to prove the "truth" of Evangelicalism. He is still trying to prove Christianity "true" objectively, which cannot be done. That's what I have always said. Mormonism is "true" because it works in our lives.

Oh, by the way, what is "objective truth"?

Note that this is one of the original questions in the OP - what is "reality"?

[Honorentheos]

And what is "objective truth"?

I think it is about as "real" as Santa Claus.

Seriously- this is the crux -- what IS "objective truth" for you?

You know you can't say "correspondence to reality" to me and get away with it. I don't believe in anything which cannot be experienced.

There was a study done in a major city (if needed I can look around for the reference) where they had people stand on the sidewalk and stare off into the distance. The study found that one person doing this while a group was walking by had little impact on another person's likelihood of looking to see what the individual was looking at.

But as the number of the people staring in the same direction increased, the more likely someone passing by was to look in that direction. At a certain point, people would even stop themselves because at some point people began to wonder what it was they were missing and because there wasn't anything obvious to see, they HAD to stop and figure out what was going on.

There is a biological, evolutionary reason we have this trait, but that is beside the point. But it gets at the thin line we are discussing here regarding science and "objective truth". Everything we have experienced is purely subjective by definition. And we only have knowledge of those things we have "experienced" even if this is through the means of observing someone else or reading something, etc.

The scientific method is a process that has been devised to start cutting away at the biases and subjective nature of our collective inputs by seeking first, to define the process one arrived at one's conclusions in a manner that others can follow. Second, by only allowing those items to remain as valid theories that have been repeated with the predicted results. And even more sure, looking at tangential results and seeing if these also support the theory.

In effect, "objective reality" or as close as we get to it, is having a lot of diverse people staring at the same spot. If everyone has the same biases (plays the same language game) it becomes less reliable as the common nature of these other's subjective beliefs is overlapped by too much to be that credible.

And it's not perfect. I think i was getting at that before. But it beats any alternative I've seen to date. Just keep looking where I am looking.

[Honorentheos]

I love it for the same reasons you do, seeing it from the other point of view. Science and religion are two different language games with no possible conflict between them.

Of course the editor who wrote those words about Evangelism was an Evangelical who was trying to prove the "truth" of Evangelicalism. He is still trying to prove Christianity "true" objectively, which cannot be done. That's what I have always said. Mormonism is "true" because it works in our lives.

I agree with this last statement, as it is fully in the realm of the religion language game.

Just know, I have been contending that the conflicts arise when one has strayed into the other's game. And in the case of a physical God, LDS theology has. It doesn't matter to anyone from within the religion-game. But it gets chopped off as invalid from within the science-game.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with this last statement, as it is fully in the realm of the religion language game.

Just know, I have been contending that the conflicts arise when one has strayed into the other's game. And in the case of a physical God, LDS theology has. It doesn't matter to anyone from within the religion-game. But it gets chopped off as invalid from within the science-game.

But it is a proposition about belief, not about observable evidence.

[cdowis]

But the point is simply that the LDS faith is not fully reconcilable with modern science and there are areas of proven physics that make the existance of a physical, eternal God incompatible with the current model of the universe as we have it.

And that is important because the current model of the universe is the current boundary of actual science. Not the possible future boundary that you hope will reconcile the two again one day. And it even may happen. But that future, potential boundary isn't science. Not yet, and not certain that it ever will be.

Is the geocentric view of the universe compatible with the modern view of the universe? The former model was based on objective observation, and the consensus of scientists.

Your model of the universe is an artifact of the Newtonian model. Your "inconsistency" between the LDS belief and science is an artifact of centuries old thought and views of the universe.

Science fiction? umm, if one is into alternate universes and willing to believe that there may be a Princess Leah in their future galaxy far, far, away.

Tell us about your belief system and the issues I raised above, the real world of QM, entangled particles, multiple dimensions, and, perhaps, string theory. Scientists understand that the universe is stranger than we can ever imagine, and Princess Leah actually lives in your Newtonian universe. You are living in a fantasy world that no longer exists.

Your assertion that LDS belief in diety and the model of the universe is hot air and utter nonsense. Your universe is far far away in the fairy land of the geocentric universe, the Newtonian universe. You need to grow out of that fantasy.

Give us specific facts regarding this inconsistency. Be specific, give us specific data, not your belief, not your philosophy. Not your Newtonian model of the universe.

Let's see what you got.

[Honorentheos]

Newtonian universe? There isn't a single point in your post that applies to anything that I have stated at any point in this thread. I'm actually a bit shocked that you could read this thread and end up with this post. Interesting.

Let me try and clarify the salient points for you so you can hopefully see my position is not only NOT a Newtonian view, it's actually contradictory to the old Newtonian understanding of time and requires one to understand time as it relates to the current model of the universe at anything other than the quantum level (relativity) -

Rather than being a continuity or even an individual entity as is understood under Newton, time in relativity is merely a way of defining the relationships of objects within the background we call "space" which is the knowable or observable extent of "things" by a being. Put one way, all time does is define the exact condition of things as they exist in space. November 6, 2009, 0131 AM MST is empirically understood as a relation of the earth, the sun, the other solar bodies, etc., to one another and all other observable objects in our universe.

As individuals, we relate to time better or understand it best as a relationship of our person to something else, such as the commute to work, our pillow, the gym, or what have you. I remember this point in time as what I was doing, with what other objects or people were around me, at least as this information is interpreted by my brain/mind. It is a point in 3D space-time, defined by the relationship of all the objects that are interrelating. Time for an individual, relative to the cosmic order of things, can fly or grind slowly by for this reason.

This creates a problem for the LDS view of God. For something to be truly eternal (as opposed to existing for infinity) it would have to be the only "thing" in existence. It could not have any other "thing" to relate to. Once it did there would be time. Changing universes doesn't really address this, either. But that is getting away from the basic point - time under Newtonian physics was fully compatible with the JS-based theology of a material god. Time under relativity is not.

To be honest, though I do not personally believe in the Christian view of the trinity, I think that it is actually more intelligible now given modern physics than the LDS view. If God were in fact outside of our realm of understanding(our universe as it began at the big bang) and did not have a physical body- the creedal God of unfathomable everywhere etc, etc, that entity called God could conceivable be eternal. Christ, as the physical relational embodiment of that entity, could simply be a manifestation of God "in the flesh". For men to be able to experience God within time, or have a relationship with God, something along these lines would be required anyway. In effect, Christ would be something "different" that the above eternal entity but the same. And the holy spirit would be something akin to the experience of this entity in a non-physical manner for men that, because it is relational falls within time and therefore would also be the same and yet not the same.

AGAIN! - The LDS view of God being a resurrected being with a physical, eternal body worked better under a steady-state universe and using Newtonian physics with time being a separate entity independent of matter and energy rather than a relative property or description of what we are observing in space-time. In that model, God could exist at any point on the infinite continuum of this non-relational time in any form as we all could.

Currently the evidence is against a steady state universe, or one where an infinite regression of gods could be possible. Not impossible given that we don't know. But our current understanding of physics is in conflict with the LDS theological view of the nature of God as a physical being.

Regarding your other points, I think the point could be made that new evidence is generally of most value to a person when they are less certain about their current view. A person who is certain that their view is correct (and we all are to some degree on some things), will not use the evidence to change their view. Rather, they will develop an explanation for the evidence that is in line with their currently held position. One reason that I feel your arguments are better aimed at religion than science. Science not only changed, it was the vehicle that wrought this change on itself. It broke it's own chains, if you will. The religious mind is resistant to changes in the science game IF they challenge one's grounding for the non-scientific "religious meaning" that the religious language game gives their lives. It involves a process of confabulation to protect this view, which our minds happen to be very well adapted to perform. This is why we NEED the scientific method to advance our knowledge.

That being said, I think that the process of confabulation can further the body of intellectual knowledge that is held by humanity. Every confabulation is an hypothesis that can be evaluated and potentially tested by anyone who cares to do so.

But I think that a person who would hope to maintain a child-like sense of awe about life, and work to develop a true love of learning (as opposed to a love of refining already held dogmatic beliefs) has to begin by recognizing that worldviews as a whole are suspect. One has to be open to the idea one may be wrong before new evidence can be looked at in as close to an objective way as is humanly possible.

So, we no longer have a geocentric view of the world. As a race, we were able to change our worldview - though mostly by letting the hold outs die off.

[Honorentheos]

But it is a proposition about belief, not about observable evidence.

I'm not sure if this means that we have reached agreement or just sailed past one another. Can I just assume we have reached agreement?

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure if this means that we have reached agreement or just sailed past one another. Can I just assume we have reached agreement?

I hope so.

It is what I have been trying to say all along.

[Honorentheos]

I hope so.

It is what I have been trying to say all along.

Funny, that how I feel too. I'm tempted to bring up my lion analogy again, but think I'll let it rest if that passing reference will allow it to do so.

[mfbukowski]

Newtonian universe? There isn't a single point in your post that applies to anything that I have stated at any point in this thread. I'm actually a bit shocked that you could read this thread and end up with this post. Interesting.

Let me really press my luck and see if I can "translate" cdowis objection.

What I think he is saying is that there may be further scientific discoveries and theories in the future which make a belief in God "scientific". Perhaps what he says about the Newtonian model is an analogy for what is now QM, which may be supplanted by a further advanced model in the future making God scientifically possible. But maybe I am wrong.