LDS Apologetic Response to Atheistic Materialism

[thorleym]

Atheistic materialists, such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, like to boast of their

[mfbukowski]

Here is an appetizer:

Tied up, but I will get back to you!

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[Greg Smith]

Hard to know if you're being sincere or facetious, here, Greg.

What, that I sincerely dislike Stalinist architecture? Sincere. Hence the "shudder."

Except maybe the m

[TAO]

Quantum Weirdness

Quantum mechanics is the physicist

[changed]

". Yet quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite - results depend on whether anyone is watching. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle stream (electron, proton, photon, etc.) pass through slits, the particles behaves like bullets, passing through one slit or the other. But if no one observes the particles, they exhibit the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities - including somehow passing through both slits at the same time."

this is leaving out a bit... in order to "see" the electrons, you have to touch them, and by touching them, you alter them.

"What causes the wave function to collapse? Observing it! Just looking at it does the job. Experiment has shown that even mere knowledge in the experimenter

[cksalmon]

What, that I sincerely dislike Stalinist architecture? Sincere. Hence the "shudder."

Except maybe the m

[TAO]

". Yet quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite - results depend on whether anyone is watching. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle stream (electron, proton, photon, etc.) pass through slits, the particles behaves like bullets, passing through one slit or the other. But if no one observes the particles, they exhibit the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities - including somehow passing through both slits at the same time."

this is leaving out a bit... in order to "see" the electrons, you have to touch them, and by touching them, you alter them.

"What causes the wave function to collapse? Observing it! Just looking at it does the job. Experiment has shown that even mere knowledge in the experimenter

[PacMan]

Self-removed. Funny, but not nice.

[MistahStokes]

Good morning Greg,

I don

[MistahStokes]

However, to me, their position requires them to prove a negative, i.e. that God does not exist, a logical fallacy

Disproving a negative is not a logical fallacy and very easy to do so.

[elguanteloko]

As changed points out, God does indeed tell us why his way is good -- it leads to happiness. And what are we but that we might be happy?

Let's say a very rich King wants to make me part of his family.. but I know his ways are not good at all. I know the fortune I will get if I accept him is going to make me happy.. but, does that make it good (the 'moral good")? I don't think so. What makes someone happy may not be what is moral.

For me, personally, I don't worship God because I believe in an a priori "good" or "moral"*. These things are merely descriptors of behaviors and principles that lead to the happiness of the beings who abide by them. And I am willing to submit both by reason and simple observation** that God knows what he is talking about.

what makes you think that what God wants or knows is something you will agree with? His morality may be completely different than yours is.

* This does put me at odds with other Mormons but it is an idea that fits easily within the tent of Mormonism.

...

** Wherever the principles that God teaches mankind are practiced, that society is so much the happier and better off.

This single sentence requires a whole new topic so I won't get into it.

[elguanteloko]

What the world has yet to discover is that when God is seen to be a Man, humanism suddenly becomes theology. Nietzsche may have correctly indicated the death of the Platonic god, without having a clue that he was helping to explain a new paradigm for what God really is.

A new concept of God that makes Him even weaker.

[Nofear]

Today, of course, the atomic theory of matter has been proven beyond doubt. Matter is composed of atoms, which are in turn composed of elemental subatomic particles. Going back to the Prophet

[cksalmon]

Disproving a negative is not a logical fallacy and very easy to do so.

Something's off here, MS. (I'm aware of the general philosophical discussion re: whether or not it is possible to prove a negative in a sense that is relevant to a particular sort of discussion at hand, but I'm not sure exactly what you're attempting to get at here.)

[Ralph Man]

He probably means proving a negative, which also is not a logical fallacy and can be very easy to do. The idea that it is impossible to prove a negative is a common misconception usually derived from the difficulty of empirically proving a universal. But "There are no black swans." is as difficult to establish as "All Swans are white." It doesn't matter if it is a positive or negative.

The atheist position is formally just a rejection of belief in deities, so they don't have to prove there is no God anyway. They just have to establish they are rational to not believe in a deity.

[elguanteloko]

"Parable" might be a better term than "analogy." I'm trying to convey something of the feeling and transformation. All analogies fail if pushed too far.

Ah! I thought you wanted to make a case for something and not just express your feelings. Sorry about that!

Indeed, it might not. Or, it might. In my experience, my little parable is a pale shadow of the experience. Only you can tell or decide. Part of it is about trust (on which see below).

Same as above... I thought you wanted to discuss this more seriously.

Obviously, I would never encourage someone to do something they felt morally wrong. And again, this is a parable. A hostile reading will probably simply miss my point. I'm not offering this as an argument for a syllogism, but as a way of expressing something.

same as above the above.

I have said nothing about power.

I meant by 'power' all the art, scientific knowledge, etc that the 'father' in your analogy had.

Again, I would not encourage you to accept something immoral. Christianity generally (and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically) is about the renunciation of power (in the conventional sense). [Which is not to say that this has not been less than stellarly implemented throughout history. But, this is both to be expected in its worldview, and is addressed.]

Mormonism about the renunciation of power, huh? Protestants don't think they will become as powerful as God but Mormons do... mmm.

Any legitimate power, in the LDS view, flows naturally and "without compulsion" (D&C 121)--rather like the power a trusted mentor's opinion has for someone. They have no dictatorial power, but by the nature of who and what they are, and the experiences we've had with them, they have great influence: unsought, uncompelled, but also unbreakable and undeniable. They probably would refuse some of the kinds of power over us we might offer them, and thus (ironically) increase their influence over us while leaving us freer. But, to seek to do this is to fail at it. It comes gently, "as the dews from heaven."

Following a system where you think those that reject God will deserve infinitely less than those that accept Him seems VERY immoral to me.

I'm speaking colloquially, of course. In a way we discover a purpose, or find a resonance in things that just fit or seem right, or transform everything for the good--again, the LDS view we are relearning or remembering, we are not starting from scratch. Waking from a dream, or recovering from amnesia, as it were.

But, only you can know.

...

I'm not sure where you get the idea about might and right. I've said nothing about that at all.

Again, I was talking about the great things the 'father' in your analogy had. It does not matter how many great things he has to offer, that does not mean he is right.

(It is for this reason that I don't particularly care for the king analogy, since we don't really meet God as a king--we meet him weeping, carrying our griefs and sorrows, and on a lonely cross on a hill. Glamor and power and might are most definitely not on offer.)

Really? Why mention all His science, art, etc in the first place?

God specifically will not compel either our obedience, love, or belief.

Well, taking from you the ability to have children and get married FOREVER if you don't obey him seems like a pretty big threat.

This is, in fact, one of the appealing things--he could certainly do so, and might in one sense be "right" to do so, given how much better he is than me. But, he doesn't and is extraordinarily patient. "Easy to please, yet hard to satisfy," to paraphrase CS Lewis.

easy to please? Come on, man. You are white-washing your doctrines all over the place.

Faith involves trust--we all establish and maintain relationships built on trust. I married my wife without the guarantee that she would always treat me right, or without cheating on me, etc. My experience with her to that point led me to trust her. Trust is built bit by bit, drop by drop. And, it always involves an element of risk--there is no certainty, though when we trust someone enough we may speak and act in terms of certainty.

In a similar way, as we have experiences with God, we can grow to trust Him. This is particularly true as we encounter God through Jesus, who did not seek power, who suffered in our behalf even prior to our acceptance or acknowledgment of his action, etc.

If you are convinced that to follow God (in any sense, in any formalation) is to necessarily be called to immorality, I can only say that this has not been my experience, and as Teilhard de Chardin once observed, perhaps you have simply not heard of or encountered God in the right way yet.

Again, only you can know or decide that question.

what I have written should be enough for now.

[cksalmon]

He probably means proving a negative, which also is not a logical fallacy and can be very easy to do.

Sure, that's what I was driving at.

In light of the question at hand, however, it seems that the issue of proving a negative (viz., God does not exist) in some mutually-relevant sense banishes us from the tranquil ranch of philosophical discussion and cordons us off in the wasteland of quantitative analyses of actual evil, or some such.

If he means that philosophically demonstrating as true the statement that "God does not exist" (thereby proving this particular negative) is a "very easy" task, I'd have to assume that something is missing from the statement as presented.

[MistahStokes]

Sure, that's what I was driving at.

Ralphman has it right, I typed too fast and didn't read what I posted, so I stand corrected.

In light of the question at hand, however, it seems that the issue of proving a negative (viz., God does not exist) in some mutually-relevant sense banishes us from the tranquil ranch of philosophical discussion and cordons us off in the wasteland of quantitative analyses of actual evil, or some such.

If he means that philosophically demonstrating as true the statement that "God does not exist" (thereby proving this particular negative) is a "very easy" task, I'd have to assume that something is missing from the statement as presented.

Yup, I could also show a contradiction with God's attributes. If I can deduce that G leads to both X and -X, it's a safe move to -G. Of course this doesn't hold true for all formulations of God, but people make it sound like proving negative is some kind of forbidden move that just can't be done. I guess they confuse it with the problem of induction?

[TAO]

Mormonism about the renunciation of power, huh? Protestants don't think they will become as powerful as God but Mormons do... mmm.

Ah, perhaps one needs to try to understand what God expects of people who seek such a position... if one would look at that, one would definitely understand what is meant by 'renunciation of power'.... and that is service.

Following a system where you think those that reject God will deserve infinitely less than those that accept Him seems VERY immoral to me.

Not infinitely less. No, they get what they asked for. If they accepted the word of God, they would get one thing. If they didn't, they'd get another. If they were somewhere in the middle, they'd get somewhere in the middle.

Again, I was talking about the great things the 'father' in your analogy had. It does not matter how many great things he has to offer, that does not mean he is right.

No, great things he has to offer don't make him right - what makes him right is a higher sense of justice than we have. Thus, he performs acts we see as unjust in our limited human perspective, but will be seen as just when we rise to the state he is in. The ability to see everything (including how people will react) has a good effect on people's sense of justice, does it not?

Well, taking from you the ability to have children and get married FOREVER if you don't obey him seems like a pretty big threat.

No, not a threat, simply those people do not have the responsibility to hold those positions, thus God must, reluctantly not allow them to have such. He would love to allow them to have such, but they have not lived their life and learned properly to exist justly in that position.

You must understand, God denies us higher positions not because he wants us to, but because putting someone who would not hold such a position correctly in such a position should not be borne.

[cksalmon]

Ralphman has it right, I typed too fast and didn't read what I posted, so I stand corrected.

Yup, I could also show a contradiction with God's attributes. If I can deduce that G leads to both X and -X, it's a safe move to -G.

If, then, sure. That would be an interesting line of demonstration, to be sure. Hopefully, it wouldn't be

[Tarski]

". Yet quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite - results depend on whether anyone is watching. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle stream (electron, proton, photon, etc.) pass through slits, the particles behaves like bullets, passing through one slit or the other. But if no one observes the particles, they exhibit the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities - including somehow passing through both slits at the same time."

this is leaving out a bit... in order to "see" the electrons, you have to touch them, and by touching them, you alter them.

As Feynman points out, no person has to be looking. All that has to be the case is that some record is made in the universe that makes it in principle possible to tell which slit the electron entered. No one, no person, no consciousness, has to check the instruments. It doesn't even have to be a device designed for measuring. Feynman gives a real world example involving spin on pages 3-6, 3-8, 3-9 of volume 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics where we see the effect of a sort of measurement done not by the person but by a hidden part of the system--no one looks.

The connection between conciousness is an uneccesary interpretation that got started because some form of idealism or anti-realism was popular with guys like Born and others in the Copenhagen group. This has cause untold confusion and unnecessay mysticism (it affecting people on this message board!). Now days many people know better. Physicist Victor Stenger wrote a whole book debunking these ideas (The Unconsciousn Quantum is the title).

The best book on quantum mechanics out there right now is by Leslie E. Ballentine. It is called Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. Ballentine spends a considerable amount of effort in the book trying to undue some of the confusions that ensue from illegitimately implicating consciousness (something we don't even know how to define properly). He is also organizes conferences on the philosophy and interpretation of quantum mechanics where he routinely demolishes quantum mysticism by using actual experiments. Unfortunately, the long time hegemony of the copenhagen interpretation combined with some people's innate love of all thing mystical and new-age has left us with some modern mysterians like H. Stapp (his physics is OK, but his philosophical claims are quite poor).

There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics that do not implicate consciousness at all.

Ballentine is an advocate of the ensemble interpretation. But there is also the stochastic interpretation, the transactional interpretation, the many worlds interpretation, the hidden variables interpretation of Bohm, and many more.

None of these change what we do in the lab or how we do the math--or at least that's the usual claim.

The main problem is this; the more conceptual progress philosophy and cognitive science makes on the problem of defining and elucidating consciousness, the less reasonable these quantum consciousness ideas appear. Indeed, the Copenhagen interpretation (the consciousness version) relies on a rather outdated dualistic notion of consciousness. It's time to leave unnecessary mysticism behind even if it does tickle the fancy of the public.

References:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/ballentine_ajp_42_81_73.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Development-Leslie-Ballentine/dp/9810241054

http://www.amazon.com/Unconscious-Quantum-Metaphysics-Physics-Cosmology/dp/1573920223

[WalkerW]

Mistah -

I certainly didn't mean that God was just a Will among Wills as if all Wills are the same. I used the word "will" to contrast your "things." A will seemed to me more personable than a mere thing. Madsen used it as syonymous with "intelligence" or "self."

Blake Ostler has talked about many of the points you have brought up. Three of his articles that I would suggest are "Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity," Element 1:1 (Spring 2005), "The Silence That Is Not Silence," Element 1:2 (Fall 2005), and "Atonement and the Sacred Thou at the Center of Joseph Smith's Revelations" (online paper). You can access them all at his website: http://blakeostler.c...lete_works.html

By the way, thanks for the Nozick quote. Very thought-provoking.

[mfbukowski]

Actually no, observing it in any way or form is changing it.

Nah, it is "creating it". How would you know you changed it? How would you measure the change you made by observing it?

[mfbukowski]

A new concept of God that makes Him even weaker.

Of course not. That he allows us to be like him makes him greater than ever before conceived.