The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[mfbukowski]

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

I think it would be very fruitful to explore this further. Maybe later, maybe not.

[elguanteloko]

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.

CFR, please. BTW, what is "male logic" and "female intuition"? I greatly doubt a serious research used those terms.

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.

When I said I agreed I apparently meant something COMPLETELY different from what you got from it.

Intellectual drive, for me, is nothing but logic and rule-following. That's it. If you study logic you will realize it never tells you what you should start with. I doesn't tell you what works, either. It doesn't tell you what is best, what is preferable, what is convenient, etc. All these things are put in there using other methods that can be name more like "intuition" than "emotion". However, it seems rather risky to rely only on our intuitions and logic so we go to studies of different kinds designed to test those intuitions. That's where the empirical part of science begins. Religion, however, forgets the guidance of logic and proper testing to challenge those "intuitions" and that's why it conflicts with science.

Thus, even though you (post #66) do not trust the LDS GAs and propnets 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. (underlines added by elguanteloko)

Oh! So you think they mean something different (since you imply my interpretation isn't correct) by "God has a body of flesh and bones" than I think they do (as a literal concrete body)? Well, please give me the correct interpretation!

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

That depends on what the religious belief is. If you believe saying some words will cure you of your cancer, then that's pretty testable by science. So, it depends.

[elguanteloko]

mf

You are missing the point yet again. If religion means by "God has a body of flesh and bones" what it can be interpreted to mean literally, then I see no reason why science couldn't confirm its existence.

About the "language" thing... that is silly beyond belief as you two are using it.

"You can't confirm the existence of plastic by chemistry."

"Why not?"

"Because 'plastic talk' isn't 'chemistry talk' "

"But it seems that if you say plastic is physical and it is similar to our plastic, then it can be confirmed by chemistry"

"No, because it's 'plastic talk', not 'chemistry talk'."

How isn't a physical body and influences on the physical not within the purview of science? Again, calling something "science talk" and the other "religion talk" because they originated one from science and the other from religion, as if that somehow instantaneously made those claims by religion impermeable to scientific scrutiny is the silliest thing I've heard in this forum in a long time.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

I'm an old hard bitten social scientist.

When I'm in my role as scientist I'm as sceptical, and as hard to convince as the worst disbeliever there is. Moreover it takes a lot more than someone, even a Prophet, telling me something for me to accept it. If it is a scientific testable claim then I use scientifically well accepted methods for confirming or rejecting those claims. OTOH if it is a religious claim. I do exactly the same, except I use religious methods to substantiate, or reject it. In my very LDS constructes I think it out in my own mind, then rely on God for an answer. That some don't do it my way in any way negates or diminishes their way. It works for me, and I'm still a pretty good memeber of the Church after 40 years now.

True the LDS make the claim that there is a God. What I fail to see is how, if LDS are not handicapped in any way by their beliefs in the pursuit of good verifiable science. Why it would make any difference to you.

To paraphrase an Article of Faith. I will let you believe any silly thing you want to believe, as long as you let me believe any silly thing I want to believe.

[mfbukowski]

mf

You are missing the point yet again. If religion means by "God has a body of flesh and bones" what it can be interpreted to mean literally, then I see no reason why science couldn't confirm its existence.

About the "language" thing... that is silly beyond belief as you two are using it.

"You can't confirm the existence of plastic by chemistry."

"Why not?"

"Because 'plastic talk' isn't 'chemistry talk' "

"But it seems that if you say plastic is physical and it is similar to our plastic, then it can be confirmed by chemistry"

"No, because it's 'plastic talk', not 'chemistry talk'."

How isn't a physical body and influences on the physical not within the purview of science? Again, calling something "science talk" and the other "religion talk" because they originated one from science and the other from religion, as if that somehow instantaneously made those claims by religion impermeable to scientific scrutiny is the silliest thing I've heard in this forum in a long time.

I know this is incredibly difficult for you. The statement about plastic is empirically, objectively justified.

I have said I would stay out of this discussion- we have probably had over a hundred posts and replies between us, and you just don't understand the philosophy behind my point. I can't help that.

There is no point in discussing it further. I like you and would love to communicate with you but it seems hopeless. Maybe someone else like Cobalt can explain it- at this point I don't hold much hope in that though.

This might help- it seems to me that you are a "naive realist". But it will only help if you actually read it.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/CriteriaRealism.htm

Edited August 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

True the LDS make the claim that there is a God. What I fail to see is how, if LDS are not handicapped in any way by their beliefs in the pursuit of good verifiable science. Why it would make any difference to you.

Because they say there's no conflict when there is. Because they say they are consistent when they aren't. Because many don't understand what science is or their bad reasoning. Since I care about being as correct as possible (and I think others are), then I care about all those things.

To paraphrase an Article of Faith. I will let you believe any silly thing you want to believe, as long as you let me believe any silly thing I want to believe.

I'm not making anyone believe what I see as correct, TSS. This is called a discussion forum for a reason.

[elguanteloko]

I know this is incredibly difficult for you. The statement about plastic is empirically, objectively justified.

and why aren't statements like the ones I mentioned from Mormonism empirically, objectively justifiable (not justified)? Why should anyone accept such useless 'tests' as religious tests are other than because you want to believe?

There is no point in discussing it further.

Then don't do it.

it seems to me that you are a "naive realist".

http://atheism.about...eriaRealism.htm

I'm not a naive realist but thanks.

[Jeff K.]

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.

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?

I presumed elguantepoco would understand the approach accordingly, that science itself understands the potential illusions it lives with. Apparently the probability elguante would know this was "miscalculated". I guess that happens in science.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

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.

The reasons computers can operate is based on quantum physics.... to say it doesn't translate into reality is to completely ignore science. Or so a scientist would tell you. I suggest you study up on how transistors work and what part quantum physics plays in it. You are apparently unaware of the how the theories interact and what the "TOE" is all about.

Go ahead, keep telling us how much you know about science. It is entertaining.

[mfbukowski]

and why aren't statements like the ones I mentioned from Mormonism empirically, objectively justifiable (not justified)? Why should anyone accept such useless 'tests' as religious tests are other than because you want to believe?

I don't mean to derail this thread, but here you have many many people who are intelligent and educated, who are actually clergy in a Protestant church, who call themselves "atheists" or "agnostics".

"When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that's where it can happen. God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience."

Mr Hendrikse describes the Bible's account of Jesus's life as a mythological story about a man who may never have existed, even if it is a valuable source of wisdom about how to lead a good life.

His book Believing in a Non-Existent God led to calls from more traditionalist Christians for him to be removed. However, a special church meeting decided his views were too widely shared among church thinkers for him to be singled out.

A study by the Free University of Amsterdam found that one-in-six clergy in the PKN and six other smaller denominations was either agnostic or atheist.

Sound familiar?

I don't want to associate myself with them- I do believe in God of course, and in fact feel I can say "I know" he communicates with me. But clearly, these people they see religious truth differently than you do. Do you think they are stupid or crazy? Just curious. I just want you to consider the possibility that you are missing something here, that your view of religious truth is perhaps, well, incomplete in describing all its aspects.

This thread was just started- and I would be very curious to see your reaction to the article linked here- and again, I would suggest that if any want to comment on this post, it be done on the other thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-14417362

Edited August 6, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

The reasons computers can operate is based on quantum physics.... to say it doesn't translate into reality is to completely ignore science. Or so a scientist would tell you. I suggest you study up on how transistors work and what part quantum physics plays in it. You are apparently unaware of the how the theories interact and what the "TOE" is all about.

Go ahead, keep telling us how much you know about science. It is entertaining.

I clarified what I meant and, on that fact alone, your criticism doesn't work at all (read it again since you never got it, apparently). I also clarified what I meant by "reality", Jeff, don't play silly with me. I was speaking of cars and baseballs and 'normal'-sized objects.

I'm going to have to ask you to quit this silly trend of childish objections, brother, and not post anymore in this thread.

Edited August 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I don't mean to derail this thread, but here you have many many people who are intelligent and educated, who are actually clergy in a Protestant church, who call themselves "atheists" or "agnostics".

and? Since they don't believe in what I've been criticizing then my criticism doesn't apply to them.

Sound familiar?

same as above.

I don't want to associate myself with them- I do believe in God of course, and in fact feel I can say "I know" he communicates with me. But clearly, these people they see religious truth differently than you do. Do you think they are stupid or crazy? Just curious. I just want you to consider the possibility that you are missing something here, that your view of religious truth is perhaps, well, incomplete in describing all its aspects.

This thread was just started- and I would be very curious to see your reaction to the article linked here- and again, I would suggest that if any want to comment on this post, it be done on the other thread.

I'll comment on it and say that this has ZERO to do with the thread. Who cares what they believe when my criticism is to other kind of ideas? Saying there are people who don't adopt what I attack is like saying there are people who don't have cancer at an Oncology conference.

If you are not going to object in an intelligent manner to what I'm saying, mf, then don't post here.

[Robert F. Smith]

CFR, please. BTW, what is "male logic" and "female intuition"? I greatly doubt a serious research used those terms.

Sorry. I can't locate the reference just now. Psychology Today doesn't archive more than a decade into the past, and this was an article from the early 70s. However, I will rummage around in the university stacks to see if I can locate it again (I actually have the whole issue somewhere).

The researchers did use the stereotypical terms since they had become embedded in our cultural psyche. The test was made to see whether there was any truth to the stereotype. Turns out that there was a substantive basis to the stereotype, and we usually hear of it described somewhat as follows:

The ancient Greeks, Carl Jung, and many other eminent thinkers contrasted intuition and logic, and scientists have recently discovered that they occur in different parts of the brain. Intuition takes place in the right half, the seat of artistic abilities, while logic occurs in the left half. These halves are often called the right and left brains. [From Alan Schoonmaker (Ph.D.),

Your Worst Poker Enemy

(N.Y.: Kensington, 2007), 19]

Such differences are sometimes also put into the following terms:

n Objectivityversus Subjectivity

n Logic versus Intuition

n Exactnessversus Ambiguity

n Formalityversus Informality

n Rationalityversus Emotion

n Algorithmsversus Heuristics

--from a Carnegie-Mellon Power Point Presentation at psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/CarnegieMellon.ppt

We might approach the same phenomena from the viewpoint of physicist Fritjof Capra, who argued in detail that Eastern thought and Western thought reached the same conclusions about nature, but via very different means. See his The Tao of Physics. Western logic is not the only legitimate means to the same end.

I emphasize this since you seem to have wedded yourself to a very narrow view of religion.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeff K.]

elguanteloko, on 05 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

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.

Jeff K., on 05 August 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

The reasons computers can operate is based on quantum physics.... to say it doesn't translate into reality is to completely ignore science. Or so a scientist would tell you. I suggest you study up on how transistors work and what part quantum physics plays in it. You are apparently unaware of the how the theories interact and what the "TOE" is all about.

Go ahead, keep telling us how much you know about science. It is entertaining.

Printers are within the same area as computers and many other items also use them.

I clarified what I meant and, on that fact alone, your criticism doesn't work at all (read it again since you never got it, apparently). I also clarified what I meant by "reality", Jeff, don't play silly with me. I was speaking of cars and baseballs and 'normal'-sized objects.

I'm going to have to ask you to quit this silly trend of childish objections, brother, and not post anymore in this thread.

No you did not clarify what you meant. But please feel free to show us "what you meant". Since your statement on the face of it has clearly been refuted. Apparently what you mean by "reality" is only what you mean, not necessarily what it "really" is.

As to my not posting in this discussion. I have kept myself within the confines of what you have posted. I have critiqued your position. I see no reason to stop critiquing the points you made when I feel they are wrong, no matter how uncomfortable that makes you, or how childish it makes you sound... brother. I must decline your generous offer.

[mfbukowski]

and? Since they don't believe in what I've been criticizing then my criticism doesn't apply to them.

same as above.

I'll comment on it and say that this has ZERO to do with the thread. Who cares what they believe when my criticism is to other kind of ideas? Saying there are people who don't adopt what I attack is like saying there are people who don't have cancer at an Oncology conference.

If you are not going to object in an intelligent manner to what I'm saying, mf, then don't post here.

Totally over your head.

They believe exactly what you are criticizing. They see no conflict between science and religion for exactly the same reasons I do. Did you see the article?

Your silly arrogance over nothing is showing again. Slow down and think a little bit ok?

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

"Because they say there's no conflict when there is. Because they say they are consistent when they aren't. Because many don't understand what science is or their bad reasoning. Since I care about being as correct as possible (and I think others are), then I care about all those things".

As I am a well qualified scientist, and have worked many successful years in my chosen professsion yours is mere assertion. I have also given you a way to verify that there are many fully qualified scientists that are also LDS. What you are now expressing is nothing less than a anti-religious bias.

Ps; http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1177/alphabetical-list

Edited August 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[shalamabobbi]

I do want to state here, though, that saying this is a matter of mere taste is misleading. That parsimony is based more on pragmatic grounds is something I would never deny... but "pragmatic grounds" doesn't mean they just use if for fun or because they find it likeable. The pragmatic use of parsimony (and if you read Kuhn you'll realize this) rests in that science needs to discriminate between theories that are proposed. After all (and you seem to realize this) a limitless number of theories can explain a given set of facts... which ones to chose and test? There are many criteria used like simplicity, familiarity with concepts, consistency, falsifiability, mathematical justifications, predictability, susceptibility to testing and measurement, etc. "God did it" isn't accepted as an explanation (or even as a fact) because it hardly meets those criteria. I never implied these factors took us to "the truth" or the "correct answer" at all. All I've been saying is that these rational and practical considerations are what have been working better and what seem more likely to get us to better results than ignoring them like religion does. That is where the conflict with religion comes and branches out from.

You are not getting my point. Since science does not address *truth*, and religion declares God exists as *truth*, there is NO conflict period. How can a *truth* claim conflict with a systematic approach that makes no claims to *truth*? And as OR/parsimony are used in science to pick the most appropriate/concise way to describe phenomenon, not to decide anything about *truth*, the principal is of no utility in determining *truth* by an appeal to its use within science. This agrees with Occum himself who, as a theist, created the criteria..

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.

And with this paragraph I am in agreement. I do not subscribe to including God within the realm of science. Since as I understand the issue, it is not possible to use the methods of science to determine anything about Him. Briefly, because He is in charge as to what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself rather than us. So we cannot make any tests to ferret out any information about Him unless He agrees to reveal that information of His own accord. He has a physical body by LDS beliefs, but not a mortal body. I do believe that this distinction is important even though you seem to ignore it.

Then there's no rational justification for accepting the God explanation.

If by rational you intend scientific, I am in agreement.

If you can't even test in principle God's existence or participation, why accept God as an explanation at all other than you just feel like it?

Well here again we are back to the issue of personal testimony. And as I can only speak for my own experience and not for another, I can say, for myself, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not I feel like it. Again the notion of the existence of God, apart from accepting it upon the principal of faith alone (which seems to be the rule among most other denominations), for the LDS is based upon modern testimony as well as old. This amounts to believing the experiences claimed by others. And this is usually some combination of faith and perhaps personal experiences as well. It is also tied in with those aspects about which you seem inclined not to deny, such as being a better person through obedience to commandments, etc.

In my own case many of my experiences through out my life are not capable of being explained away as existing solely within my own mind whether as feelings or otherwise. They are tied in with the real world in such a manner that there is confirmation from without myself. But these experiences are still in and of themselves not the reason for my belief. My belief is not the result of a logical deduction, nor of confirmatory spiritual experiences, as much as it is based upon the simple acceptance of that which I feel to be an internal conviction of truth as it relates to how I behave with respect to the concepts of right and wrong. In conjunction with trying this experiment I find that my life is indeed better and that these commandments of God that I follow are indeed beneficial as promised. I consider this to be *truth*.

The argument held up by some that there is no scientific proof that these kinds of behaviors, or disobedience to commandments is harmful, is simply to me a demonstration of the limitations of the scientific method to those areas of life which are most important to me. This country was founded upon the blood of those who sacrificed themselves that others might enjoy freedom of conscience in religious worship. And having freed this country's citizens from the tyrants that went before, I am confused by the self declared enlightened ones that would return us to the dictates of a new form of tyranny against personal freedom of conscience by declaring that we cannot accept the dictates of our own conscience unless we are all agreed based upon the framework of science. Especially is this true in light of the obvious impotence of science to create any basis for a discussion of right from wrong that all can agree upon.

(Again, I never said parsimony 'determines truth', that's silly!) This is where the conflict is: since science can't even test or reach IN PRINCIPLE that God, then there is no reason to accept such an explanation. We aren't speaking of some sort of mystical proposition here but of physical existence with influence on the physical. THAT is the conflict. Scientific-oriented thinking leads one to say, "Since there is no evidence nor is God necessary to explain something, then there is no good reason to accept his physical existence and his influence on the physical" while religion says "Anyways we will accept the God explanation". The latter is directly antithetical to science.

Again, no disagreement that it is without the bounds of science, but it is within the bounds of personal testimony and experience even though those may fail to meet the scientific standard for us all. I conclude there is no conflict in accepting that to which I am personally privy as well as accepting science and what it is capable of revealing.

If someone was to conclude that because something was 'subjective' that it was therefore false, that would be very bad reasoning. I'm not saying this. Please, bobbi, read what I'm trying to say carefully. I'm NOT saying that because science can't test it that it is, therefore, false.... at all.

Great, then you agree with me.

All I'm saying is that there isn't any good reason to accept propositions like "God has a body of flesh and bones" if we accept scientific REASONING, not (religious?)tests. You can't accept science and accept such propositions AS TRUE without being inconsistent.

Not if you have done the test and verified it to be true for yourself. It is not possible to verify it broadly such that it is accepted by the scientific community at large for the reasons given before. We are not in charge of the test and its results, God is. He is revealed according to His will not ours. Such a situation is not amenable to the scientific method.

But someone like Joseph Smith has a perfectly good reason to accept the proposition. Someone like the early apostles to whom the resurrected Savior said "Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have", has a perfectly good reason to accept the proposition. Someone like Oliver Cowdery who felt the physical hand of John the Baptist upon his head has a perfectly good reason to accept the proposition.

And there is no reason to conclude that their acceptance would be inconsistent with acceptance of the scientific method. That which is addressable by the scientific method is simply a proper subset of that which might be acceptable as real by including other methodologies that while not being scientific are not inherently in conflict with it either.

There is no contradiction between personal experience and science. Science is simply that which we all can experience personally and hence agree upon. If some experience is allowed to some but not to all then it is outside of science by definition, but it is all still personal experience..

[elguanteloko]

Sorry. I can't locate the reference just now. Psychology Today doesn't archive more than a decade into the past, and this was an article from the early 70s. However, I will rummage around in the university stacks to see if I can locate it again (I actually have the whole issue somewhere).

an article from the 70s? Don't you have something more recent?

I emphasize this since you seem to have wedded yourself to a very narrow view of religion.

Have I really? Why? (Please don't tell me about the meaning of life part of religion or the teachings that helps us become better people. I've clarified enough what type of statements made by religions I'm actually talking about)

[elguanteloko]

Printers are within the same area as computers and many other items also use them.

I meant there's no uncertainty and all the QM craziness with 'normal'-sized objects. That's why I used cars and printers. I hope that clarifies further.

[elguanteloko]

They believe exactly what you are criticizing.

Rev Klaas Hendrikse said "God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience”

This shows he doesn't believe what I'm criticizing. I don't get how you can't see that, honestly.

[elguanteloko]

You are not getting my point. Since science does not address *truth*, and religion declares God exists as *truth*, there is NO conflict period. How can a *truth* claim conflict with a systematic approach that makes no claims to *truth*? And as OR/parsimony are used in science to pick the most appropriate/concise way to describe phenomenon, not to decide anything about *truth*, the principal is of no utility in determining *truth* by an appeal to its use within science. This agrees with Occum himself who, as a theist, created the criteria..

The conflict isn't that religions claim "the truth" but that they provide no proper justification. I honestly can't understand why you still haven't understood that. Claiming isn't the problem, claiming without justification is the problem.

And with this paragraph I am in agreement. I do not subscribe to including God within the realm of science. Since as I understand the issue, it is not possible to use the methods of science to determine anything about Him. Briefly, because He is in charge as to what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself rather than us. So we cannot make any tests to ferret out any information about Him unless He agrees to reveal that information of His own accord. He has a physical body by LDS beliefs, but not a mortal body. I do believe that this distinction is important even though you seem to ignore it.

I was speaking in principle all along since I know in practice it is a whole different issue. In principle science can get to confirm God's existence and body and the power of prayer, etc EVEN IF in practice God chooses to hide himself from scientists. Then, God is not outside of the purview of science since it can, in principle, confirm his existence. Good.

If by rational you intend scientific, I am in agreement.

No, I meant rational.

Well here again we are back to the issue of personal testimony.

and again I tell you that no one is questioning your 'personal testimony' but what you say the origins of that testimony is.

And as I can only speak for my own experience and not for another, I can say, for myself, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not I feel like it. Again the notion of the existence of God, apart from accepting it upon the principal of faith alone (which seems to be the rule among most other denominations), for the LDS is based upon modern testimony as well as old. This amounts to believing the experiences claimed by others. And this is usually some combination of faith and perhaps personal experiences as well. It is also tied in with those aspects about which you seem inclined not to deny, such as being a better person through obedience to commandments, etc.

That's fine but the issue is not how you get to believe but whether it is justified that you believe.

In my own case many of my experiences through out my life are not capable of being explained away as existing solely within my own mind whether as feelings or otherwise. They are tied in with the real world in such a manner that there is confirmation from without myself. But these experiences are still in and of themselves not the reason for my belief. My belief is not the result of a logical deduction, nor of confirmatory spiritual experiences, as much as it is based upon the simple acceptance of that which I feel to be an internal conviction of truth as it relates to how I behave with respect to the concepts of right and wrong. In conjunction with trying this experiment I find that my life is indeed better and that these commandments of God that I follow are indeed beneficial as promised. I consider this to be *truth*.

"God did it" is the best explanation you can come up for those experiences? No one's saying, again, that those experiences happen "within your own mind" but whether the origins you claim for them are in fact what you claim they are.

The argument held up by some that there is no scientific proof that these kinds of behaviors, or disobedience to commandments is harmful, is simply to me a demonstration of the limitations of the scientific method to those areas of life which are most important to me. This country was founded upon the blood of those who sacrificed themselves that others might enjoy freedom of conscience in religious worship. And having freed this country's citizens from the tyrants that went before, I am confused by the self declared enlightened ones that would return us to the dictates of a new form of tyranny against personal freedom of conscience by declaring that we cannot accept the dictates of our own conscience unless we are all agreed based upon the framework of science. Especially is this true in light of the obvious impotence of science to create any basis for a discussion of right from wrong that all can agree upon.

irrelevant.

Again, no disagreement that it is without the bounds of science, but it is within the bounds of personal testimony and experience even though those may fail to meet the scientific standard for us all. I conclude there is no conflict in accepting that to which I am personally privy as well as accepting science and what it is capable of revealing.

...I didn't say it is outside of science, silly. I explained where the conflict is. Why take those experiences as having originated by a super-powerful human?

Not if you have done the test and verified it to be true for yourself.

Once again, that supposed 'test' is what is the problem. Just because you call it a test it doesn't mean it is a good one. Why is it a good one? Is it reliable?

Edited August 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I'm not saying that statements like "God has a body of flesh and bones" is exempt from analysis from the language of science. It's just that when such an analysis occurs, it is a mistranslation: in this case, it's neither good science or good religion. It's not good science because God is not subject to direct examination by an qualified physician, followed by peer review and publication in a respectable journal. It's not good religion, either, because regardless of what scientific analysis you might subject God to, or what peer reviewed journal the results are published in, you are not going to convince an evangelical Baptist that God has a liver and a spleen. So any attempt to translate this scientific act to religious language would be entirely ineffective and hold no convincing power. You might as well not even be speaking.

[elguanteloko]

As I am a well qualified scientist, and have worked many successful years in my chosen professsion yours is mere assertion.

...no, they are arguments not mere assertions. where have you been for the past 11 thread pages?

I have also given you a way to verify that there are many fully qualified scientists that are also LDS.

Dude, I accept there are good scientists that are LDS, what are you talking about? That doesn't mean they are being consistent in what I'm talking about. You can be inconsistent in the way I'm saying they are inconsistent and still be a Nobel prize winning scientist. That's perfectly fine with me.

Edited August 6, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I'm not saying that statements like "God has a body of flesh and bones" is exempt from analysis from the language of science.

Great! did you see that, mfbukowski?

It's just that when such an analysis occurs, it is a mistranslation: in this case, it's neither good science or good religion. It's not good science because God is not subject to direct examination by an qualified physician, followed by peer review and publication in a respectable journal.

...you just said it was.

It's not good religion, either, because regardless of what scientific analysis you might subject God to, or what peer reviewed journal the results are published in, you are not going to convince an evangelical Baptist that God has a liver and a spleen. So any attempt to translate this scientific act to religious language would be entirely ineffective and hold no convincing power. You might as well not even be speaking.

....

OK...

So, because the results won't convince an evangelical Baptist it is, therefore, bad science.

....

right..........

[Cobalt-70]

How isn't a physical body and influences on the physical not within the purview of science? Again, calling something "science talk" and the other "religion talk" because they originated one from science and the other from religion, as if that somehow instantaneously made those claims by religion impermeable to scientific scrutiny is the silliest thing I've heard in this forum in a long time.

You weren't responding to me here, but let me just say that I think you misunderstand what I, at least, am saying. If you could get God to come down and lay on an operating table, and let a physician do an examination, subject the results of that examination to peer review, and the publish it in a respectable journal, that would be very good science. They would deserve a Nobel prize. The problem is, it's not good religion. It doesn't translate. In religion-land, peer-reviewed journals mean nothing.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It's only bad if people don't understand that there is a difference between the language of science and the language of religion, of they don't understand that both science and religion are merely languages. For example, if people try to do science by reading the Bible or the Book of Mormon, that's really bad. Bad science and bad religion. Likewise, if people were to try to do scientific experiments to determine which religious ritual brings them closest to nirvana/salvation/clear, that equally bad as both science and religion. You'd never get such crap research published in a respectable journal. Maybe an Evangelical might offer such research over the pulpit, but only because for the last few decades, the Evangelical community has been developing an elaborate pseudoscience which combines the language of science and religion into something that is neither quite science nor quite religion, but certainly has quite a lot of political power. Mormons have been doing that too, to some extent, led by FARMS.