The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[Jeff K.]

Actually that is exactly what you are propsing, indeed you claim that science corrects itself. Reflective of that exact implication.

[Cobalt-70]

OK, so here's where the conflict begins and that my OP talked about. There is a difference in the standards of religion and those of science to determine if something is the case or not. For example, that "God has a physical body" isn't something accepted in science at all because "personal revelation" isn't proper evidence in science. Religion, on the other hand, does take "personal revelation" as sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Notice that claim is NOT outside the scope of science in principle so the mantra of "Spiritual truths aren't in the scope of science" is simply not true. The efficacy of miracles is another one. Simply "feeling" or having "personal revelation" that God's power cured grandma's cancer is enough to establish it but it isn't so in science.

I'd say that science and religion very often do conflict, but that they don't have to. The reason why they conflict can be summed up by the term "translation error." Science and religion are two different languages, with different syntax, semantics, symbolism, etc. One language is not inherently superior to the other--they are just languages: strings of otherwise meaningless symbols written according to a set of syntactical rules. The only time that they conflict is if someone tries to translate an idea written in the language of religion into a supposedly-corresponding idea written in the language of religion, or vice versa. Like any two languages, some ideas in one language just don't translate well into the other language. The problem is when people insist that their translation makes sense in the other language, when they aren't very familiar with that other language, or if they have a chauvinistic attitude about one language versus another.

[elguanteloko]

I'd say that science and religion very often do conflict, but that they don't have to. The reason why they conflict can be summed up by the term "translation error." Science and religion are two different languages, with different syntax, semantics, symbolism, etc. One language is not inherently superior to the other--they are just languages: strings of otherwise meaningless symbols written according to a set of syntactical rules. The only time that they conflict is if someone tries to translate an idea written in the language of religion into a supposedly-corresponding idea written in the language of religion, or vice versa. Like any two languages, some ideas in one language just don't translate well into the other language. The problem is when people insist that their translation makes sense in the other language, when they aren't very familiar with that other language, or if they have a chauvinistic attitude about one language versus another.

I'm not getting you, friend. Can you please provide some examples of those "translation errors" specially focused at the claim that "God has a body of flesh and bones"? Should we take that statement symbolically? What do you specifically mean? Please realize I'm speaking of very specific kinds of claims made by religions (specially the Mormon Church), not about the meaning of life, what is moral or immoral, or other statements of that kind.

(I see you're new here so, welcome!)

Edited August 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not getting you, friend. Can you please provide some examples of those "translation errors" specially focused at the claim that "God has a body of flesh and bones"? Should we take that statement symbolically? What do you specifically mean? Please realize I'm speaking of very specific kinds of claims made by religions (specially the Mormon Church), not about the meaning of life, what is moral or immoral, or other statements of that kind.

(I see you're new here so, welcome!)

Thanks. My point is that a statement like "God has a body of flesh and bones" was intended as a religious statement, not a scientific statement. Joseph Smith did not get God on an autopsy table, cut him open, and take inventory of his body parts. If we could subject God to such an experiment, and publish the results in the Journal Nature after adequate peer review, then that would be a conclusion in the language of science. In the absence of that, we have no way to translate that statement from religion-ese into science-ese. But then again, even if we could perform such a God-biopsy, that would not really help us translate the religious idea that "God has a body of flesh and bones" into the language of science, because that statement was intended as a religious statement: it means that God is one of us: that we are gods and gods are men. If we think that performing a God-biopsy will shed light on that statement, from a religious perspective, then we don't understand the difference between science and religion. Even if we could cut God open and show that he literally had a spleen and a hyoid bone, that would still not answer the religious question of whether he was "one of us."

[Robert F. Smith]

That depends on the use of "God" and how you propose "God's manifestations" to come about. Read through the thread and you will find that most people here believe in God's physical existence and influence on the physical but by all means, design a test to test what you think God's existence of influence can be supported with credible evidence! I'm all for that! Since those proposing the "God explanation" don't do this, then it is left out of science NOT as outside of its purview in principle but outside of its current reach. That is why science won't accept the God explanation as of today.

I'm not sure that (after all this discussion) science can properly accept or reject the so-called "God explanation" for anything, i.e., that science is the proper entity or method for dealing with such epistemic claims.

For the apostles who spent 40 days with a resurrected Jesus, such theoretical questions would have had little meaning since they were dealing with a concrete reality. On the other hand, one might prefer to account for this lengthy experience as a kind of Houdini-like hoax (a la Hugh Schonfield's 1966 Passover Plot), or even judge that resurrection is the unlikeliest explanation and therefore to be disregarded even by those who were there. Writing in Acts 1:3, Luke suggests that this period of personal experience had provided them with many demonstrations (KJV "infallible proofs") of his resurrected nature. For them, parsiimony and unfalsifiability never came into consideration.

Following your approach, two millennia later, we can only judge that the least likely probability is that he was actually resurrected from the dead, and we must therefore reject it as the best explanation.

However, since you define parsimony in terms of statistics and probability theory in post #146, it might be well to point out here that a bell curve deals with overall tendencies rather than with actual instances, i.e., it does not tell us what happens to a particular individual, but only what typically happens (the law of averages). So, I prefer to accept the proviso of Shalamabobbi (and blarsen) in post #164 wherein he provides better and more limited definitions of parsimony using your own sources. To that I would also add his post #143 which provides the URL to E. Feser, "Blinded by Scientism."

[Robert F. Smith]

Not sure what you mean about the universe being designed to support life. As far as we can tell so far, out of all the thousands of planets, earth is the only one in the universe that supports life.

It would not be a quibble to say that there are billions of planets, and that most astrophysicists assume (based on probability and biochemistry) that many of them are inhabited by life-forms of some sort, some far more advanced than we are.

Since Elguanteloko prefers to think of reality in terms of probability, it might be well to consider how we are to take the high likelihood that there are advanced sentient beings on some other planets. What does this do to the supposed conflict between science and religion?

[Robert F. Smith]

A similar question is: why do I trust the scientists? Because other scientists say they accept them? Or because I can read their experiments and I know that I can duplicate it (if I have the equipment and time to do it)? So, why do I trust the prophets? Because I can read what they did and duplicate it and I believe the same thing can happen to me. That is one of the reasons why I believe in the LDS faith. I'm not just reading a 2000 year old book about people back then that had visions. I can listen to people who are alive now that have visions. I myself can have visions. Would I trust you if you said you had a vision? If you can tell me what I need to do to have the same thing, then I'd definitely listen. I would then have to weigh how much I trust you vs trusting the other prophets and make a decision. I'd also attempt to put your experiment to a test.

Could it be possible that they lied, hallucinated, etc? Sure, why not. But how do I explain my own experiences? Am I lying to myself, hallucinating, brainwashed, or just having a bad dinner? Plus, there are a few mysterious in life that make me believe that there is something in a different "sphere"/dimension than we are (such as agency, karma, precognition, automatic writing, etc). Taking into account these mysteries and my own experiences, the LDS theology explains them in the simplest manner that doesn't cause me to doubt my own sanity.

What is a miracle? It is an event that is unexplainable with our current knowledge. When I read of the miracles in earlier times, I attempt to explain them with our current knowledge. When I read of miracles in our day, I attempt to explain them with our current knowledge as well. Most of the time, I can do it. I even expect all miracles to one day be explainable. That doesn't mean there isn't a God. It just means that He uses natural laws to bring about His actions. And I see no reason to not give thanks to Him (if you believe in Him) even if He didn't cause the miracle.

But how is it careless? In practice people will explain a miracle in many different ways. Take a sick patient who was healed. It could have been because of prayer, medicine, time, laughter, love, motivation, the hospital food, etc. We'll probably never know for that specific situation. What is wrong with expressing thanks to a figment of their imagination?

But that doesn't mean that the LDS theology is careless in its rationality. All of the doctrine has been revealed through a vision or revelation. We are ourselves capable of receiving visions or revelations. So, I am capable of verifying the doctrine. I don't just have to trust peoples' word. I can test it myself.

Excellent observations. You're right on the money.

[elguanteloko]

Thanks. My point is that a statement like "God has a body of flesh and bones" was intended as a religious statement, not a scientific statement.

What difference does this make? Saying it was intended "as a religious statement" doesn't mean it isn't within the purview of science even if the prophets never intended them to. If any religion tries to explain the physical with the "God" explanation, then they got themselves within the purview of science.

Joseph Smith did not get God on an autopsy table, cut him open, and take inventory of his body parts. If we could subject God to such an experiment, and publish the results in the Journal Nature after adequate peer review, then that would be a conclusion in the language of science. In the absence of that, we have no way to translate that statement from religion-ese into science-ese. But then again, even if we could perform such a God-biopsy, that would not really help us translate the religious idea that "God has a body of flesh and bones" into the language of science, because that statement was intended as a religious statement:

I'm sorry to say but what you keep saying is a conflict of "language" seems like a bad attempt to make God except from proper justification for someone to accept his existence.

it means that God is one of us: that we are gods and gods are men. If we think that performing a God-biopsy will shed light on that statement, from a religious perspective, then we don't understand the difference between science and religion. Even if we could cut God open and show that he literally had a spleen and a hyoid bone, that would still not answer the religious question of whether he was "one of us."

Again, Cobalt, religion accepts that "God exists", that "God has a body of flesh and bones", that "God influences the physical" not as metaphors or symbols but as statements that refer literally and concretely what they say. If you think calling something "religious" ipso facto should change the standard to accept it from rational to irrational, then you are not seeing the entire point. If I call the statement "Unicorns enable me to see the future" a "magical statement", how does that except it from us using reliable tests and see if I can do what I say I can do (see the future)? It doesn't in the slightest.

Cobalt, if you think science can't even in principle arrive at confirming God's existence or his influence or his nature (providing good reasons, btw, not just using the fact that we call it a 'religious statement'), then science will reject that claim but not as saying those statements are wrong, but as saying they have no proper evidence backing them up and we don't have enough reasons to accept them.

Edited August 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I'm not sure that (after all this discussion) science can properly accept or reject the so-called "God explanation" for anything, i.e., that science is the proper entity or method for dealing with such epistemic claims.

....once again, I'm speaking of very specific claims made by religion. "God exists", "God has a body of flesh and bones", etc.

For the apostles who spent 40 days with a resurrected Jesus, such theoretical questions would have had little meaning since they were dealing with a concrete reality. On the other hand, one might prefer to account for this lengthy experience as a kind of Houdini-like hoax (a la Hugh Schonfield's 1966 Passover Plot), or even judge that resurrection is the unlikeliest explanation and therefore to be disregarded even by those who were there. Writing in Acts 1:3, Luke suggests that this period of personal experience had provided them with many demonstrations (KJV "infallible proofs") of his resurrected nature. For them, parsiimony and unfalsifiability never came into consideration.

That's very anachronistic. I'm sure they didn't even knew of parsimony or falsifiability.

Following your approach, two millennia later, we can only judge that the least likely probability is that he was actually resurrected from the dead, and we must therefore reject it as the best explanation.

Correct.

However, since you define parsimony in terms of statistics and probability theory in post #146, it might be well to point out here that a bell curve deals with overall tendencies rather than with actual instances, i.e., it does not tell us what happens to a particular individual, but only what typically happens (the law of averages). So, I prefer to accept the proviso of Shalamabobbi (and blarsen) in post #164 wherein he provides better and more limited definitions of parsimony using your own sources. To that I would also add his post #143 which provides the URL to E. Feser, "Blinded by Scientism."

If you think what you just said goes against what I'm saying then you never got the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying probability or parsimony invariably take you to the correct answer, that's a misunderstanding of what they are. I fully accept the possibility that God exists and that Mormonism (or Catholicism or Evangelicalism) is correct. The point is that with science it is always premature to say what is indeed the case (as religion does) without proper justification. That's why there is a conflict. Religion jumps to conclusions, science is antithetical to doing that. You can't accept both of those methodologies and be consistent. Now, you may say God is somehow exempt from scientific study in principle or in practice... but the whole point is that, because of this, religion is in conflict when it says "God exists" or "God has a body of flesh and bones" even if God, at the end of the day, does exist and does have a body of flesh and bones.

[elguanteloko]

Since Elguanteloko prefers to think of reality in terms of probability, it might be well to consider how we are to take the high likelihood that there are advanced sentient beings on some other planets. What does this do to the supposed conflict between science and religion?

Saying I see reality "in terms of probability" as you are doing here is incorrect. If this was correct, then I wouldn't accept empirical facts since they aren't probabilities. Conditionals aren't probabilities either. Neither is most of logic and most of mathematics but I accept empirical facts, conditionals, most of logic and most of mathematics.

I don't see how the high likelihood that there are advanced sentient beings on other planets is relevant here, really, though it may serve as an illustration. Religion would say "There ARE sentient beings on other planets" while science simply says it is highly likely. It is unlikely that we are alone in the universe but religion could say "We ARE alone in the universe" while science says "It is unlikely that we are alone in the universe." You can't have it both ways, either science or religion.

[Jeff K.]

If this was correct, then I wouldn't accept empirical facts since they aren't probabilities.

My cat Shrodinger can't stop laughing. My dog Hiesenberg is laughing so hard his eyes are tearing up. Both my pets have a better understanding of science than the statement indicates.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Actually Hawking DOES claim tthere is no God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/stephen-hawking-there-is-no-heaven/2011/05/16/AF6hNs4G_blog.html

So he really is an Atheist, not that there is anything wrong with that, and not the Agnostic as you proprosed.

There is also an extensive list of scientist is every discipline that are devout believers in one or more Gods, including the LDS. You can see the LDS side on this very forum.

They do excellent work. So you maintaining that believer are somehow handicapped because of religion(particularly the LDS) is catagorically false. It is also a slam on me personally as I am a real live, and breathing scientist, who happens to also be a devoute LDS.

[Jeff K.]

That is more of elguanteloco's subtle bigotry towards belief systems that he doesn't understand or agree with. I wonder if he follows the routes of others and deny jobs based on people's religion? Or is he merely "politely" bigoted? Maybe he is simply an uninformed individual in regards to science and religion? Given that most informed individuals of science and religion, especially those who understand religion and are real scientists (to borrow a phrase) see no conflict.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Jeff K.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I can't speak to anyone else's motivations. So I let them sink or swim on their own merits. I see elguanteloko as a basically good guy. Who has become disenchanted with religion.

[elguanteloko]

My cat Shrodinger can't stop laughing. My dog Hiesenberg is laughing so hard his eyes are tearing up. Both my pets have a better understanding of science than the statement indicates.

Probabilities aren't facts though the statement "X has a probability z of q" is a fact about a probability. Try to think about what I'm actually saying, Jeff, instead of needing me to correct you whenever you say something this silly. It's called intellectual charity.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

"Probabilities aren't facts though the statement "X has a probability z of q" is a fact about a probability".

True enough but irrelevent. IE; There is the fact of electrons, but no one can be certain of their speed and location at the same time. The best we can do, is a high probability that they are within a given orbit at any given time. Now Quantum Mechanics comes along and says that whole atoms appear to come into existence and disappear from existence at random. Now what is the probability that what we call reality is merely an illusion? Mind boggling isn't it?

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Actually Hawking DOES claim tthere is no God.

http://www.washingto...hNs4G_blog.html

So he really is an Atheist, not that there is anything wrong with that, and not the Agnostic as you proprosed.

I didn't say he was Agnostic. When we say "There is no God" we don't mean it is impossible for there to be a God but simply that we are justified enough to say there is no God. Similar statements are "There are no magical unicorns", "There are no gnomes at the end of the rainbow", etc. We don't mean by those statements that it is literally impossible for there to be unicorns or gnomes at the end of rainbows but that we are justified enough in saying those things don't exist. I am an Atheist for the same reasons. There is a possibility that God exists but there is also a possibility that I'm a brain in a vat but I'm justified enough in saying I'm not a brain in a vat just as I am in saying there is no God. This is more casual talk, btw, so if you press atheists they will tell you at the end of the day that it isn't impossible for there to be a God. Hawking isn't an atheist since he doesn't say it is impossible for there to be a God but he is an atheist in that he says there is no God for all practical purposes.

There is also an extensive list of scientist is every discipline that are devout believers in one or more Gods, including the LDS. You can see the LDS side on this very forum.

So?

They do excellent work. So you maintaining that believer are somehow handicapped because of religion(particularly the LDS) is catagorically false. It is also a slam on me personally as I am a real live, and breathing scientist, who happens to also be a devoute LDS.

I don't know what you mean by "handicapped because of religion" but I'm saying is that they are not being consistent.

[elguanteloko]

Now Quantum Mechanics comes along and says that whole atoms appear to come into existence and disappear from existence at random. Now what is the probability that what we call reality is merely an illusion? Mind boggling isn't it?

The reason we don't have what physicists call "the theory of everything" is because QM doesn't translate into "reality" if by reality you mean baseballs, cars, printers. Saying "reality is merely an illusion" is an exaggeration and saying "electrons" are an illusion is also.

You don't need to take this personal but I find it rather disturbing that theists are so quick to want to make "reality" into something much more flexible than reason would allow us to go. I don't need to tell you why I think they do so.

[Cobalt-70]

What difference does this make? Saying it was intended "as a religious statement" doesn't mean it isn't within the purview of science even if the prophets never intended them to. If any religion tries to explain the physical with the "God" explanation, then they got themselves within the purview of science.

I'm sorry to say but what you keep saying is a conflict of "language" seems like a bad attempt to make God except from proper justification for someone to accept his existence.

Again, Cobalt, religion accepts that "God exists", that "God has a body of flesh and bones", that "God influences the physical" not as metaphors or symbols but as statements that refer literally and concretely what they say. If you think calling something "religious" ipso facto should change the standard to accept it from rational to irrational, then you are not seeing the entire point. If I call the statement "Unicorns enable me to see the future" a "magical statement", how does that except it from us using reliable tests and see if I can do what I say I can do (see the future)? It doesn't in the slightest.

Cobalt, if you think science can't even in principle arrive at confirming God's existence or his influence or his nature (providing good reasons, btw, not just using the fact that we call it a 'religious statement'), then science will reject that claim but not as saying those statements are wrong, but as saying they have no proper evidence backing them up and we don't have enough reasons to accept them.

The phrase "God's influence on nature" illustrates the problem. If you are talking about nature, then you are seeking legitimacy in the language of science. However, by using the term God, you are seeking legitimacy through the language of religion. If you say "God's influence on nature," you are setting up an inherent collision that doesn't need to exist. In the language of science, God is forever negligible. In the language of religion, God is the cause of everything. These two statements can be independently true, if you don't try to mix languages.

Even if, somewhere out in the universe, we discovered someone who called himself God, he wouldn't be "God" in the language of science. He would just be an example of extraterrestrial life. Similarly, even if you discovered the Theory of Everything using science, you still couldn't prove that God doesn't exist, because the language of science is not equipped to answer that question. Therefore, why should we even try to legitimize religious claims using the language of science, or vice versa? It's a lost cause. So there are three solutions: (1) you believe that science is an inferior language to religion, and that religion is the only "true" language; (2) you believe that religion is inferior to science, and that science is the only "true" language; or (3) you realize that science and religion are both just languages that describe the universe in different, mutually incomprehensible ways, like French vs. Hopi, and that all this back-and-forth about which one is better is just a political game.

You say, "If I call the statement 'Unicorns enable me to see the future" a 'magical statement', how does that except it from us using reliable tests and see if I can do what I say I can do (see the future)?" There's no law that says you can't try to translate a statement like that into the language of science. I'm just saying that by doing so, you are mis-translating the statement. You are presuming, as an axiom, that the language of science is superior to the language of magic, and that all statements of magic can be translated into statements of science. That is a chauvinistic assumption. If I took the opposite view: that the language of magic is superior to the language of science, and that all scientific statements could be translated into the language of magic, you'd think I was crazy. But magic and science are both just languages--nothing more. They are strings of meaningless symbols. Because of the mistranslation problem, you cannot prove, using the language of either science or magic, that either science is superior to magic, or that magic is superior to science. Why? because if you try to translate a magic-based proof that magic is superior into the language of science, it's not good science. Likewise, if you try to translate a science-based proof that science is superior into the language of magic, it's not good magic.

[elguanteloko]

Cobalt, I'm afraid you didn't get what my objection was.

Here it is:

Why is "the language of religion" (pertaining to the statements I talked about like "God has a body of flesh and bones") different so as to be exempt from analysis from the "language of science"?

You can't just say they are different, you need to show they are not "translatable". Why? Relying on the fact that we simply name them differently won't do the job.

Edited August 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

You do know what an Atheist is? It is a person that claims that God(s) do not/can not exist. It is pretty simple statement of belief. I don't have a problem with anyone who professes to be an Atheist. In fact if the Atheists are correct, then when we die, none of us will know any differently anyway. However my personal experiences have convinced me that God does exist and the LDS concept of him is the most correct. Just like I love my parents(even though they are now both dead), but there is no way for me to convince you to love my parents.

I have a greater degree of sympathy, and rational agreement with the Agnostics. Those that aren't sure, but allow for the possibility of God.

Pots of Gold at the end of Rainbows, magical flying pink unicorns, or the like aren't part of my or the LDS belief system. So that is a Red Herring at best. It is also insulting to believers, and the LDS in particular. I have never insulted you or your beliefs, even though I disagree. So do please return the favor to me.

NO ONE is totally consistent. We ALL have areas of our lives that disagree with other parts of our lives. Useless total consistency is the hobgobblin of a narrow mind. The LDS scientist that I know and know of are no different than any other scientists that I know of. We all apply the Scientific Method to the best of our ability. We do excellent work in our fields of expertise, while being LDS.

Edited August 5, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

....once again, I'm speaking of very specific claims made by religion. "God exists", "God has a body of flesh and bones", etc.

I'm not saying probability or parsimony invariably take you to the correct answer, that's a misunderstanding of what they are. I fully accept the possibility that God exists and that Mormonism (or Catholicism or Evangelicalism) is correct. The point is that with science it is always premature to say what is indeed the case (as religion does) without proper justification. That's why there is a conflict. Religion jumps to conclusions, science is antithetical to doing that. You can't accept both of those methodologies and be consistent. Now, you may say God is somehow exempt from scientific study in principle or in practice... but the whole point is that, because of this, religion is in conflict when it says "God exists" or "God has a body of flesh and bones" even if God, at the end of the day, does exist and does have a body of flesh and bones.

In your bias toward one epistemic mode, however, you create a conflict where there needn't be one. This is reminiscent of the study published decades ago in Psychology Today in which the actual, empirical value of two separate methods were found to be complementary rather than in conflict, i.e., male logic was set over against female intuition. The study of both methods in real life situations (problem solving) demonstrated that each method reached similar conclusions, even though males and females typically got exasperated at the seemingly wrong method used by the other gender.

Just so, HeatherAnn pointed out (to your obvious delight) in post #64, that "spirituality (emotional drive) & science (intellectual drive) can make more progress together, than separately." She suggested parabolic interpretation as a useful approach.

Thus, even though you (post #66) do not trust the LDS GAs and prophets because their methods seem fragile, their logic nonsense, and their claims lacking in evidence (or at least easily questionable evidence), you may be applying standards of interpretation to their claims similar to that of a typical male questioning the value of female intuition. Sounds more like chauvinism than science.

cinepro (post #74) goes even further in asserting that "there is no way to test religious 'beliefs'."

Edited August 6, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

I'd say that science and religion very often do conflict, but that they don't have to. The reason why they conflict can be summed up by the term "translation error." Science and religion are two different languages, with different syntax, semantics, symbolism, etc. One language is not inherently superior to the other--they are just languages: strings of otherwise meaningless symbols written according to a set of syntactical rules. The only time that they conflict is if someone tries to translate an idea written in the language of religion into a supposedly-corresponding idea written in the language of religion, or vice versa. Like any two languages, some ideas in one language just don't translate well into the other language. The problem is when people insist that their translation makes sense in the other language, when they aren't very familiar with that other language, or if they have a chauvinistic attitude about one language versus another.

Couldn't agree more. Welcome to the board!

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

You do know what an Atheist is? It is a person that claims that God(s) do not/can not exist.

I've never heard of Atheism as saying that "God can't exist" when this doesn't imply a contradiction. But, anyways, if you simply use the word differently than I'm using it, at least you know what I was talking about.

It is pretty simple statement of belief. I don't have a problem with anyone who professes to be an Atheist. In fact if the Atheists are correct, then when we die, none of us will know any differently anyway. However my personal experiences have convinced me that God does exist and the LDS concept of him is the most correct. Just like I love my parents(even though they are now both dead), but there is no way for me to convince you to love my parents.

That's fine. Though I find "God exists" and "I love my parents" to be extremely different types of claims... but anyways.

I have a greater degree of sympathy, and rational agreement with the Agnostics. Those that aren't sure, but allow for the possibility of God.

ok

Pots of Gold at the end of Rainbows, magical flying pink unicorns, or the like aren't part of my or the LDS belief system. So that is a Red Herring at best. It is also insulting to believers, and the LDS in particular. I have never insulted you or your beliefs, even though I disagree. So do please return the favor to me.

I wasn't insulting your beliefs and I know unicorns and gnomes aren't part of LDS beliefs. LOL Did you really think I thought that?

I mentioned that to illustrate the point that Atheists like myself say "There is no God" under certain conditions. Come on, TSS, don't get overtly sensitive like other people here.

NO ONE is totally consistent.

Whatever. The point is they are not consistent in this specific major point. I don't say this to imply LDS scientists or religious scientists are somehow bad people or stupid AT ALL. We all make mistakes and that's fine.

[mfbukowski]

Cobalt, I'm afraid you didn't get what my objection was.

Here it is:

Why is "the language of religion" (pertaining to the statements I talked about like "God has a body of flesh and bones") different so as to be exempt from analysis from the "language of science"?

You can't just say they are different, you need to show they are not "translatable". Why? Relying on the fact that we simply name them differently won't do the job.

Just for the record, I want to say that Cobalt and I appear to be totally in synch here- I will keep out of his conversation with you after this post unless someone wants to include me- I want to say this to you, elguante as well as pointing it out to Cobalt in the unlikely event he has not seen this yet.

Cobalt, el simply does not understand that there are other approaches to truth than a linguistic one; he believes that somehow truth or falsity can be determined by something outside of the context of a statement itself- as you can see in his above statement.

El, your suggestion that there could be a way to "analyze" the proposition "God has a body of flesh and bones" in a religious linguistic context AND in a scientific context simultaneously implies that there is a possible THIRD point of view beyond language from which we could somehow see both "languages" simultaneously.

There is no such standpoint outside of language. There is no way to somehow stand "outside" of language and discuss these two different contexts or language games. You can't speak about anything outside of language- because of course you are using language to do so- the notion is self-contradictory.

The ordinary way this is perceived, and seems to be what you are suggesting, is that there is some "reality" independent of our experience of it, and the way we linguistically speak about experience.

Our earlier conversation about Rorty and others, and the notion that there is no more to what is "real" that we can speak of is crucial to understanding this point

I usually describe this different points of view "subjective" and "objective" but they can also be expressed linguistically as first person statements opposed to most second and third person statements.

OK now I will shut up and let you guys hash it out unless you want to include me- but I have done so so much here that it might be great to hear Cobalt out all the way. I am here to learn after all.