short shelf life?

[44Foxtrot]

Arrogance and condescension won't convince anyone, you know. I'm not sure what is your intent in participating in this particular thread, whether it is to sow seeds of doubt, gratify your own feelings of superiority over us deluded religionists, or to genuinely help us come to terms with reality as you perceive it. Care to enlighten us?

As one born in the Church I was a faithful member for several decades. My family and I lived in a number of foreign countries, some of them tended to be secular and some religious. It didn't take too long to figure out that the secular countries were a lot better off because their citizens were better off. When I finally grew up enough to honestly look at the reasons for this, it became very clear very quickly.

The average citizen in the religious societies would, in general, base their worldviews, not on facts and evidence, but on unfounded belief, traditions myths and outright lies. With every passing year, with every new piece of scientific understanding , the gap between those who fail to base their view of the world on physical evidence are at greater and greater disadvantage. I see this from the level of the countries I have lived in down to the level of my parent's family.

In response to the question about basing one's beliefs on fact and evidence, Mormons say that they "know" that their beliefs are "true" because of the "spirit."

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Muhammad was in communication with the supreme being of the Universe while he was holed up in a cave on and off for 20 years creating what would eventually be written down (in no less than a dozen different versions) as the Holy Koran? If not, why not?

Muslims will claim that Muhammad was in communication with Allah through an angel and that they "know" this because of the influence of Allah in their heart - their spiritual experiences The spiritual experiences of some Muslims are of sufficient intensity and impact that a few of them are willing to kill themselves and innocent others if they believe that Allah wishes it.

Can you tell me how your "spiritual experiences" are different from those of faithful Muslims, or from those of Evangelicals for that matter? Are these feelings all from God? Are some from Satan? Or are these feelings (these emotional responses), simply the result of natural neurelectrical and neurochemical processes in our brains and central nervous systems?

If you were to try to convince me that your spiritual experiences are "different" or more valid, how would you go about doing so? What credible evidence do you have? All you have is the consensual validation of others like you who have bought into the same human narrative, the same unfounded beliefs, the same myths. Do you have anything more?

If I were to try to convince you of my position, I could point out that chemical and electromagnetic stimulation of the brain can induce every type of "religious experience" that has been credibly reported to scientists. There is a tremendous amount of physical evidence for this fact, including a great deal of data from the study of epileptics. One can look at ECG, PET and fMRI scans of brain activity during these episodes and can induce these experience reproducibly, and pretty much at will, in the lab.

You see, without objective physical evidence that everyone can agree on, any subjective emotion or interpretation of events can be claimed to be valid. There is no objective truth or reality, just arguments over subjective feelings.

And that is what religion boils down to; massive arguments among "believers" of different faiths as to which unfounded beliefs are the least unfounded.

So again, until one has credible physical evidence to support their core beliefs, they have no valid claim that those beliefs reflect objective truth.

If stating the obvious seems arrogant to you, then I apologize, as I often do here. Nonetheless, I doubt that you can bring a valid and logical response to defend the position that faith or religion leads one to any kind of objective truth.

[CV75]

I doubt that you can bring a valid and logical response to defend the position that faith or religion leads one to any kind of objective truth.

Of course faith or religion cannot lead one to any kind of objective truth -- nothing can: Objective and unbiased truth is supposed to apply in all times and in all situations, but anything a conscious person can see and suppose has some sort of interpretation or meaning attached to it. Personal truth is the real experience, and while its understanding is subjective and relative to the conditions under which we experience it (we experienced it/we experience it/we will experience it), it is all that can be experienced. God is personal, and His truth is relative, for

[Kenngo1969]

It takes faith to see them [the extra four virgins, making the fourteen virgins vs. the ten].

They're like the Three Nephites.

[nicolasconnault]

If stating the obvious seems arrogant to you, then I apologize, as I often do here. Nonetheless, I doubt that you can bring a valid and logical response to defend the position that faith or religion leads one to any kind of objective truth.

It is not stating the "obvious" that is arrogant, Foxtrot, but calling it "obvious". It is the sarcastic and derogatory tone in which you write your posts that is arrogant and gets people's goat. It's a shame because you usually make some valid points, but you don't encourage intelligent discussion because your low opinion of "religionists" comes across very clearly through your posts. Your "belief" that we are all ignoring the obvious and deluding ourselves is a massive stereotype, and is quite incongruent with the rational thinking you proud yourself of possessing. Just as you would expect respect and open-mindedness from others concerning your points of view, it would help you greatly to extend the same to others even if you're convinced that they're wrong.

[Kevin Christensen]

Forgive me if I interpret you incorrectly, but it appears you are trying to say that science is not always correct because it may start out from flawed assumptions or badly interpreted data.

I'm saying that as an individual, 44Foxtrot demonstrates flawed assumptions and poor interpretation of data, as well as overlooking important data. But for the record, history demonstrates that science is not always correct. Ask after the Brontosaurus and consider why it no longer exists. That turn of events has nothing to do with whether God exists, but is instructive about how science works over time.

Although this may be correct in selective instances it does not invalidate the scientific process as a whole.

Of course. I've never said or thought otherwise.

I find it a weak argument that belief in the scientific method is suspect therefor belief in God is justified.

I agree. And that is why I've never used that argument.

Science operates on a set or rules where it is constantly correcting itself in light of new data and evidence. Sure there may me bumps in the road and misdirection at times but ultimately it tends to work itself out in the ling run.

My faith has the same self-correcting characteristic.

The very fact that you sit at a computer typing is evidence of the scientific method. It took repeated effort and assumptions and data to create the computer. And the one you have today is a far cry from the one you had just 20 years ago, because science learns from it first assumptions and adds to it. This is how science works. To dismiss it because it has some wrong data or incorrect conclusions from time to time is like an ad hominem attack. I do not like the message so I attack the messenger.

All worthy points, but this has nothing to do with my approach.

Religion or faith on the other hand is simply a choice. You choose to believe and that is fine. It may even be based on some experience you had. Your experience may even be valid.

I keep recommending Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

And I wrote a detailed article that used to be on the Meridian before the links broke, but an earlier version of which Kerry Shirts has on one of his sites. Try searching for "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience." I discuss what I consider evidence. And read John Welch's essay on the nature of evidence.

the problem I think the issue 44Foxtrot has is it is not verifiable to him/her. So it is really just your experience and valid only to you.

On the other hand, I've also published 13 articles for FARMS, one for Dialogue, three or so for Sunstone, one for Oxford University Press. What I wrote in them was not apparently, just my experience and valid only for me.

You can not use it to prove a point or defend a position. You may be right on all points you believe in but the rational mind may not be willing to believe because your belief is irrational. There is a reason religion requires faith, because it is short on facts.

But I have not ever tried to use my personal religious experience to prove a point related to an academic issue in any of my writings. I've mentioned my personal experiences now and then, in relation to defining my own perspectives, but not to prove a point to anyone else. It seems to me that those who dismiss all evidence relative to the question of faith without ever bothering to examine it or account for it, are themselves being irrational.

The day that science announces that is it no longer short on facts is that day that it all becomes technology, and stops being science. It's not already all on the shelf.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[44Foxtrot]

I'm saying that as an individual, 44Foxtrot demonstrates flawed assumptions and poor interpretation of data, as well as overlooking important data. But for the record, history demonstrates that science is not always correct.

On the other hand, I've also published 13 articles for FARMS, one for Dialogue, three or so for Sunstone, one for Oxford University Press. What I wrote in them was not apparently, just my experience and valid only for me.

But I have not ever tried to use my personal religious experience to prove a point related to an academic issue in any of my writings. I've mentioned my personal experiences now and then, in relation to defining my own perspectives, but not to prove a point to anyone else. It seems to me that those who dismiss all evidence relative to the question of faith without ever bothering to examine it or account for it, are themselves being irrational.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

I have looked at several of the references you mentioned. Unfortunately, I could find no new knowledge in any of your articles. They were mainly reviews and critiques other people's work and those that I read could be classified as apologetics. What I found was a defense of unfounded beliefs and analysis of writings about the unfounded beliefs of others. It appears to me that the purpose for which these articles were written was to make you and others feel better about these unfounded beliefs.

Here is the difference between what I have seen of your work as an apologist and what I do as a scientist. I have published more than 100 peer reviewed scientific papers, along with a few books. They are not reviews. They are not opinion. They are not based on unfounded belief. They are based on physical evidence gained from scientific research and observation and provide useful new knowledge for the world.

I have been at this for a long time and my research papers have provided a lot of new knowledge. Among these papers can be found the first evidence that the anesthetic used for the popular "saddle block" during childbirth (Bupivacaine) does indeed cross the placental barrier to enter the circulation of the fetus and can result in lowered apgar scores for newly born children, identification of an important hormone in humans, demonstration that this hormone can play a role in human breast cancer risk, demonstration that cell phone use is not associated with brain cancer in a large population of laboratory animals, and demonstration that by-products from several processes to convert coal to liquid fuels are carcinogenic, and demonstration that Soviet explosive electromagnetic weapons were of limited effectiveness.

This new knowledge has been used by a Federal Judge in Chicago to make the decision not to certify a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit against cell phone manufacturers, not proceed with the deployment of certain coal liquifaction processes in the US, development of appropriate hardening countermeasures for US power grid soft targets, and to provide a way to detect and quantitatively measure a hormone in humans that could not be reliably detected and measured before my work was published.

Another poster asked why I seemed uninterested in engaging religionists about their unfounded beliefs. The reason is that, in the end, these beliefs do not contribute to the progress of society. Mormon apologetic writings are concerned with imagined issues arising from the study of fiction written by others. Mormon apologetics are of no interest whatsoever to the vast majority of people in the world. Mormon apologetics are of no value to humankind in the long run because it provides no new knowledge to society. What it does provide is opinion regarding myth.

[CV75]

my research papers have provided a lot of new knowledge. Among these papers can be found the first evidence that the anesthetic used for the popular "saddle block" during childbirth (Bupivacaine) does indeed cross the placental barrier...

This new knowledge has been used by a Federal Judge in Chicago...

CFR, please--

[44Foxtrot]

CFR, please--

No problem. Thanks for asking.

Caldwell, J., J. R. Moffat, R. L. Smith, B. A. Lieberman, R. W. Beard, W. Snedden, and B. W. Wilson. 1977. "Determination of Bupivacaine in Human Fetal and Neonatal Blood by Quantitative Mass Fragmentagraphy." Biomedical Mass Spectrometry 4: 322-325.

[LDSToronto]

Does faith have a short shelf life? Elder Kearon came to our mission, he is a 70, and he said that faith has a short shelf life. how many of you have noticed this before? What does this statement mean?

Here is what I think it means. click here to see: Faith-Short shelf life

You may link to your blog, but you need to phrase your post in a way that doesn't require anyone to read it.

Elder, I'm frankly surprised that a missionary is allowed to post to places like this (a message board where some degree of freedom of expression is allowed) Can you comment on why you choose to post here?

H.

[44Foxtrot]

In further response to CFR request from CV75:

This is an old article and the journal is apparently no longer published. However, I found the abstract on Medline, and it is shown below, along with the Medline link.

What our work showed is that, as a fetus (before birth) and as a neonate, the baby has detectable levels of bupivacaine in its circulation. And since the newborn does not yet have the enzymatic machinery to effectively clear this drug, its half life in the newborn is 18 hours as compared to about 75 minutes for the mother on average.

The breakthrough here was that the method I developed allowed us to accurately measure this drug in one microliter of blood (maximum allowable sample size from human subjects committee) taken serially from the fetus while still in the birth canal and for two days after birth. (Spelling in the Abstract is British English since I was working in London at the time this was published.)

Bottom line: Mothers who do not want their newborns to come into the world with bupivacaine in their system (partially anesthetized) should avoid its use during delivery.

________________________________

ABSTRACT

Determination of bupivacaine in human fetal and neonatal blood samples by quantitative single ion monitoring. [Journal Article]

Biomed Mass Spectrom 1977 Oct; 4(5):322-5.

The blood levels of bupivacaine administered epidurally during labour have been determined in mother, fetus and the newborn infant by quantitative single ion monitoring, following gas chromatographic separation. Concentrations were determined from the height of the peak obtained at m/e 140 derived from bupivacaine compared with that at m/e 154 derived from the internal standard, 1-n-pentyl-2-(2',6'-xylylcarbamoyl)piperidine. Results from six mothers and their infants showed that the drug passed rapidly from the maternal circulation to the infant. The plasma half-life of the drug in the newborn infant was 18 h compared with 1.25 h for the adult.

____________________________

[nicolasconnault]

demonstration that cell phone use is not associated with brain cancer in a large population of laboratory animals, and demonstration that Soviet explosive electromagnetic weapons were of limited effectiveness.

Laboratory animals use cell phones?? Are these two studies somehow related? I'm getting quite a funny picture in my mind right now (Just being facetious, of course)

[44Foxtrot]

Laboratory animals use cell phones?? Are these two studies somehow related? I'm getting quite a funny picture in my mind right now (Just being facetious, of course)

It was a funny picture.

We developed exposure systems in which lab rats were exposed to cell/satellite phone signals in utero and for an additional 100 weeks or so after birth. The rat population was large (about 750 animals in total).

They were divided into groups according to exposure and "went to work" each day for nearly two years. At work, they were put in special restraints and held in close proximity to an energized (or not) cell phone antenna. They seemed to enjoy work (we blew cool air over their whiskers to keep them amused while they were restrained).

The only statistically significant effect found was that animals who stayed in their cages all the time and never went to work (cage controls) had higher cancer rates than animals who "went to work" each day.

(This was not an unexpected finding.)

The lowest (numerical) rates of cancer were found in the animals with the highest exposure (about 10X what a human would receive from using as cell phone continuously for 8 hours per day). There was no statistically significant difference in cancer rates among the various exposed or sham exposed groups.

These rats are bred to be susceptible to cancer, so exposure to pretty much any environmental carcinogen would give raise to detectable increases in cancer rates.

This study was considered a major milestone in countering the unfounded belief that cell phones cause brain cancer. This unfounded belief was about to cost the cell phone manufacturers many billions of dollars, a large percentage of which would have gone to plaintiffs' attorneys. This cost would have been reflected in higher prices for cell phone purchase and use, and might well have forced one or more manufacturers out of the business, thus reducing competition..

Thanks for asking. --Perhaps we should get back on topic.--

[CV75]

Thanks for asking. --Perhaps we should get back on topic.--

The reason for asking is that you are offering your credentials to generate some credibility to your position on the topic at hand. The CFR you provided does not establish that you are indeed the author nor that you developed any new knowledge to benefit humanity. You have not provided support for your contention that you possess a uniquely qualified, insightful perspective on the OP. Your arguments have to continue on their own merits, and they suffer from a patina of prejudice. The weak bid for credibility does not help.

[44Foxtrot]

The reason for asking is that you are offering your credentials to generate some credibility to your position on the topic at hand. The CFR you provided does not establish that you are indeed the author nor that you developed any new knowledge to benefit humanity. You have not provided support for your contention that you possess a uniquely qualified, insightful perspective on the OP. Your arguments have to continue on their own merits, and they suffer from a patina of prejudice. The weak bid for credibility does not help.

CV75,

As an individual who apparently believes without question the statements of those who claim to have spoken with God in person, is it not a bit ironic that you would doubt those of a mere scientist?

Short of presenting myself in person with my passport and copies of my published papers, I can think of no stronger way to demonstrate that the work I described is mine. If you can think of a better way, then please let me know.

In the meantime, I would add that the kind of work I have described on this thread has to be done, and is being done every day, by hundreds of thousands of people. That is how society moves forward. If we all spent our time arguing over mythology or in writing apologetics, we would all still be on horseback and reading by candle light.

[CV75]

A an individual who apparently believes without question the statements of those who claim to have spoken with God in person, is it not a bit ironic that you would doubt those of a mere scientist?

Short of presenting myself in person with my passport and copies of my published papers, I can think of no stronger way to demonstrate that the work I described is mine. If you can think of a better way, then please let me know.

In the meantime, I would add that the kind of work I have described on this thread has to be done, and is being done every day, by hundreds of thousands of people. That is how society moves forward. If we all spent our time arguing over mythology or in writing apologetics, we would all still be on horseback and reading by candle light.

Not at all ironic -- each argument, whether made by a prophet, an apologist or a scientist, has to stand by itself. It is far more ironic that a scientist would promote the idea that his position on this matter of faith is made stronger simply because he is a scientist, which he cannot prove with the same rigor as that demanded of the faithful about their God, short of presenting Him in person and demonstrating miracles. This is why we promote the better way, which is to find out for oneself. Now I don't expect you to give out your contact information so I can interview you and peruse your asserted papers and books for myself, but I'll point out that God has given us as much. The kind of work that benefits humanity benefits humanity, regardless of the method, but the faithful speak of a particular benefit and method that has not yet effectively been proven less real than vaccines or other applications of science (which the LDS Church also promotes in its humanitarian efforts and universities). Because you cannot prove that you have accomplished much of anything original of scientific merit, and because it is quite unscientific to use such a claim to prove the strength of your arguments against faith anyway, you need to work that much harder to make your arguments lead others of all walks of life to the same conclusions you have.

[LeSellers]

A an individual who apparently believes without question the statements of those who claim to have spoken with God in person, is it not a bit ironic that you would doubt those of a mere scientist?

I don't "believe without question the statements of those who claim to have spoken with God in person", but that does not mean I (and others here) do not believe the statements of those who claim to have spoken with God in person.

It is beyond doubt that those whose words I believe have, in fact and very deed, spoken with God in person. That you reject any evidence of their truthfulness does not mean they are lying, nor does it mean you are more rational than those of us who accept them. You have arbitrarily chosen to limit the kinds of evidence you will accept. And that makes all the difference.

Lehi

[44Foxtrot]

Not at all ironic -- each argument, whether made by a prophet, an apologist or a scientist, has to stand by itself. It is far more ironic that a scientist would promote the idea that his position on this matter of faith is made stronger simply because he is a scientist, which he cannot prove with the same rigor as that demanded of the faithful about their God, short of presenting Him in person and demonstrating miracles. This is why we promote the better way, which is to find out for oneself. Now I don't expect you to give out your contact information so I can interview you and peruse your asserted papers and books for myself, but I'll point out that God has given us as much. The kind of work that benefits humanity benefits humanity, regardless of the method, but the faithful speak of a particular benefit and method that has not yet effectively been proven less real than vaccines or other applications of science (which the LDS Church also promotes in its humanitarian efforts and universities). Because you cannot prove that you have accomplished much of anything original of scientific merit, and because it is quite unscientific to use such a claim to prove the strength of your arguments against faith anyway, you need to work that much harder to make your arguments lead others of all walks of life to the same conclusions you have.

I have to hand it to you, CV75.

Although I stand solidly behind my position with regard to religion vs science as stated on this thread, I know when I have been outmaneuvered on a fine point of debate. You have just effectively negated the value of 40 years of hard work in science as it relates to this discussion.

Well done.

(Seriously. I'm impressed.)

[nicolasconnault]

I read this yesterday and thought it relevant to the latter posts:

We seek after knowledge, but we do so in a special way because we believe there are two dimensions of knowledge: material and spiritual. We seek knowledge in the material dimension by scientific inquiry and in the spiritual dimension by revelation. Revelation is God

[Jason]

In typical religionist fashion, you use religious labels to describe others with whom you do not agree. Rather than "fundamentalist" why not use the labels such as secularist, rationalist, or scientist? These would be more accurate.

"Fundamentalist" is not an exclusively religious label, and I consider my use of the term to describe your attitude perfectly appropriate.

As to engaging in rational discussion regarding the existence of the Mormon Deity, I would be happy to do so once provided credible physical evidence for his existence.

On your own rigidly-exclusive terms, in other words. The label "fundamentalist" seems even more appropriate.