What (If Anything) Would Convince You That The Church Is Not What It Claims To Be?

[citizen28]

What kind of truth is that? Can you give me an example of a truth that is universally applicable?

Why do you think such a "thing" exists? Isn't truth a property of sentences- of linguistic formulations? Perhaps linguistic formulations which give us justified beliefs- justified perhaps by experience?

Like most people, I don't believe it is possible to perfectly prove anything. As a result, I think we're all forced to work in probabilities. Certainly I "know" much less as an unbeliever than I did as a believer.

I do think beliefs are justified by experience. Just not the kinds of experience that I was taught as a church member justified belief.

[mfbukowski]

Like most people, I don't believe it is possible to perfectly prove anything. As a result, I think we're all forced to work in probabilities. Certainly I "know" much less as an unbeliever than I did as a believer.

I do think beliefs are justified by experience. Just not the kinds of experience that I was taught as a church member justified belief.

What kinds of experience justify moral beliefs? Isn't what is good what "feels" good- what you know in your gut is right? How do you know it is wrong to kill, for example?

[TAO]

What kind of personal experience are you talking about? I had many of the positive feelings that which I interpreted as the Holy Ghost, but it all started to unravel when I began to question my interpretation of these experiences, especially when I realized I had no objective way to distinguish between my own feelings, the feelings of the Holy Ghost, and/or false revelation. Many of us grew up with the idea that the Holy Ghost communicated with us through our feelings. Do you think it's actually more than that?

I've had those experiences too. But I've also had something a bit more... important, than what those regular feelings were. So, while bad feelings about the church would cause some problems, it would probably take more to drive me away.

As to the whole issue with feelings, I jousted with that a few years ago... I jousted with why believe anything whatsoever, why even believe in reality, why is life worth living, etc. Ultimately, I decided, we can't prove it, but it is more practical for me to believe, especially with the feelings I have. After all, everything we have... everything... is based on feelings. And life needs a purpose. So I said, to myself, it is worth it to believe; it is justified. And I have been going on ever since. =)

And sorta on your last question. The Holy Ghost can use other experiences to help prepare you, but he confirms everything through our feelings, imho. That isn't to say the tempter doesn't try to deceive you, but he can't replicate it exactly, or at least in my experience he can't do it the full way. There is always something wrong with it that makes it so I can tell what is the Spirit, and what isn't. Something sinister comes this way, or whatnot, lol.

To be quite honest, I guess you could say I got over worrying about what was objective... it really isn't that important, as everything is based on previous assumptions. What is more important is that there is a reason to live life... that things are worthwhile, in the end... or at least that's how I see it. I bet a ton of people would disagree with my POV though =).

In any case, enjoy your evening, wherever you are =D. Or Day. Or Afternoon. Or something ;-).

-TAO

[TAO]

Like most people, I don't believe it is possible to perfectly prove anything. As a result, I think we're all forced to work in probabilities.

To be quite honest, I'd even say we can't even work in possibilities. After all, what is a possibility calculated on, but on what we consider 'facts'. We can't even say for sure what is probably true... with one exception - I think we can say for sure we exist (that's where the statement 'I think, therefore I am' came from). So I guess that is one thing we can say realistically and... objectively =).

Alas, this is an interesting subject! More talk about this sort of stuff would be awesome!

[Stargazer]

What kind of personal experience are you talking about? I had many of the positive feelings that which I interpreted as the Holy Ghost, but it all started to unravel when I began to question my interpretation of these experiences, especially when I realized I had no objective way to distinguish between my own feelings, the feelings of the Holy Ghost, and/or false revelation. Many of us grew up with the idea that the Holy Ghost communicated with us through our feelings. Do you think it's actually more than that?

I have no objective way to explain away the evidence of my experiences. It wasn't just some cozy warm feeling. Things happened that could only be explained away by someone who willfully refused to believe it. Like denying the sun at noonday, although it isn't quite that strong, yet.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Stargazer

[citizen28]

What kinds of experience justify moral beliefs? Isn't what is good what "feels" good- what you know in your gut is right? How do you know it is wrong to kill, for example?

That's definitely one way to look at it. I believe that humans are generally inclined toward social behavior, and thus unlikely to want to commit cold-blooded murder. I'm optimistic about human nature in that I believe desires to engage in anti-social behavior can be superseded by desires for kindness and cooperation, although some people have psychological pathologies that make this difficult or impossible. I am no expert, but I find evolutionary theory to be the most powerful tool for understanding why humans think and behave the way they do. I'm also sure none of this is new for you, and you may even feel generally the same way.

For me personally, I try to temper my "gut" instincts with reason, using what I understand about the natural laws that govern our world to bring about the desired outcome.

[citizen28]

As to the whole issue with feelings, I jousted with that a few years ago... I jousted with why believe anything whatsoever, why even believe in reality, why is life worth living, etc. Ultimately, I decided, we can't prove it, but it is more practical for me to believe, especially with the feelings I have. After all, everything we have... everything... is based on feelings. And life needs a purpose. So I said, to myself, it is worth it to believe; it is justified. And I have been going on ever since. =)

I completely agree with you that life is much better when we have a purpose. For me, besides seeking the happiness of myself and those I love, my purpose is to seek understanding.

And sorta on your last question. The Holy Ghost can use other experiences to help prepare you, but he confirms everything through our feelings, imho. That isn't to say the tempter doesn't try to deceive you, but he can't replicate it exactly, or at least in my experience he can't do it the full way. There is always something wrong with it that makes it so I can tell what is the Spirit, and what isn't. Something sinister comes this way, or whatnot, lol.

It seems like someone would have to experience exactly what you have to be able to distinguish between true and false revelation the way you do. In other words it would be impossible to explain to someone with limited experience (say an investigator or a child). What keeps you from questioning your interpretation of your experiences as I have?

To be quite honest, I guess you could say I got over worrying about what was objective... it really isn't that important, as everything is based on previous assumptions. What is more important is that there is a reason to live life... that things are worthwhile, in the end... or at least that's how I see it. I bet a ton of people would disagree with my POV though =).

I think that's a wonderfully pragmatic approach, although as I think you understand, for many people it is difficult to completely give up searching for objective truth and meaning, elusive as it may be.

[citizen28]

I have no objective way to explain away the evidence of my experiences. It wasn't just some cozy warm feeling. Things happened that could only be explained away by someone who willfully refused to believe it. Like denying the sun at noonday, although it isn't quite that strong, yet.

I'd be interested to find out what your experiences were, although I understand if you're uncomfortable sharing them.

[mfbukowski]

For me personally, I try to temper my "gut" instincts with reason, using what I understand about the natural laws that govern our world to bring about the desired outcome.

I think you will find that natural laws that govern the world won't help you much in real life- like picking what university to attend or whom to marry, what church to join, or if you should pick up your laundry today or wait until Monday, when to go on vacation, how to take care of your aging parents, what to do about your weird teenage daughter, if abortion is right or if you should use contraception, what movie to watch, or even how to find your way to San Jose.

In fact all those natural laws and reason and objectively verifiable stuff is not worth much in the way you live your life.

[mfbukowski]

I think that's a wonderfully pragmatic approach, although as I think you understand, for many people it is difficult to completely give up searching for objective truth and meaning, elusive as it may be.

If you think about it, all "objective truth" is, is what you can agree with other people on. It's objective because you both can see the same thing and verify it. In effect, that's what science is. Science is great for some things, but not very useful for others.

Why are other people's opinions so important? Why not just trust your own "gut"?

Is that how you would pick a wife? Oh, I guess that's not an important decision.

Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

I completely agree with you that life is much better when we have a purpose. For me, besides seeking the happiness of myself and those I love, my purpose is to seek understanding.

It's a similar thing with me. And I also seek for life to be meaningful... I seek to serve others. Those things make my life have purpose.

It seems like someone would have to experience exactly what you have to be able to distinguish between true and false revelation the way you do. In other words it would be impossible to explain to someone with limited experience (say an investigator or a child). What keeps you from questioning your interpretation of your experiences as I have?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The special experience wasn't exactly related to distinguishing true and false revelation, but on the other hand, it has helped me alot (my trials have gotten in some aspects harder since that time) in other things.

I think I could explain to you some concept of it. But, I don't think I could explain to you the full thing. It's like trying to explain an apple to someone who has never tasted an apple. But the moment they taste the apple, they finally know what the person meant, aka, this is the tanginess he meant by 'The apple is tangy', and this is the sweetness he meant by 'The apple is sweet'. We can understand concepts like tangy and sweet, but until we actually taste the apple, we won't know what the specific tanginess of the apple truly is, and the same with the specific sweetness. So in a sense, I could not explain it completely. Nor could I guarantee it would work for you; I do not think God works the same ways with all people necessarily. I know that I'm insanely stubborn and dense sometimes, and that can cause problems, and so God might have to do a few things to get things to me that he doesn't have to do to other people, because of my weaknesses like that. Of course, such weaknesses can be strengths in certain situations, but sometimes they are definitely weaknesses =).

What keeps me from questioning my experience? Ultimately, it was just a decision I made. I'm going to be the only one who experienced what I experienced, at least for the main time. Thus, I am responsible for choosing what I do... and I'll reap both some positive and some negative consequences for it - no matter which path I take. I just decided that this path was better for me. The other path; doubting everything, isn't really appealing. Sure, I could have made a mistake, and it could have been something I misinterpreted, but if I doubt that, I am going to have to doubt everything to be consistent (believe me, I drive myself nuts about having to be consistent with myself lol - it's not the best of approaches perhaps).

I think that's a wonderfully pragmatic approach, although as I think you understand, for many people it is difficult to completely give up searching for objective truth and meaning, elusive as it may be.

Definitely. And I've met people who go the other direction. Who doubt everything, or in the least case, still live in what is considered the 'objective' universe, but say it is not justified to believe in anything. Now they are fine people, but that wouldn't be a stable existence for me, I'm afraid. I depend on knowing things, and even though I don't believe there is such a thing as 'objective', as in the way most people use it, I still think things are very objective in the sense that they are real to me. I may not have a perfectly clear vision on them, but I will do with what I have, I guess you could say, because it's better than the alternative for me =).

So in a sense... I haven't given up objective truth and meaning... I've just given up trying to prove what it is. What has become objective/real to me has become what I experience, and learn, and think about. Sure, I could be wrong, but it's the best I have right now, one could say =).

[TAO]

For me personally, I try to temper my "gut" instincts with reason, using what I understand about the natural laws that govern our world to bring about the desired outcome.

Haha, this is the best way. Just don't let one overrun the other, or vise versa, and you'll find what you need, imho =D.

[Deborah]

What would I do? Honestly I am not sure, but here is one possibility.

The next day, I would start my own church based on every bit of doctrine in the LDS church.

Ha, ha that is my thought. I might be able to dismiss Joseph Smith but how do you dismiss so easily what he gave us. Perhaps he confesses to a hoax but God still used him to instill doctrine that is profound and true.

[citizen28]

I think you will find that natural laws that govern the world won't help you much in real life- like picking what university to attend or whom to marry, what church to join, or if you should pick up your laundry today or wait until Monday, when to go on vacation, how to take care of your aging parents, what to do about your weird teenage daughter, if abortion is right or if you should use contraception, what movie to watch, or even how to find your way to San Jose.

In fact all those natural laws and reason and objectively verifiable stuff is not worth much in the way you live your life.

From a scientific perspective everything is governed by natural laws, and although our understanding of some complex processes may be limited, I believe there is useful scientific information to be had in almost all areas touching on human life. Science isn't limited to particle physics, but rather extends to e.g. medicine, human biology, psychology, sociology, and cartography (in the case of finding your way to San Jose). For eons humans didn't have many better options than "following their gut", but we now live in a time when vast amounts of information about the world is available to anyone living anywhere near an internet connection, and this has made it significantly easier to make educated decisions.

[citizen28]

If you think about it, all "objective truth" is, is what you can agree with other people on. It's objective because you both can see the same thing and verify it. In effect, that's what science is. Science is great for some things, but not very useful for others.

Why are other people's opinions so important? Why not just trust your own "gut"?

Is that how you would pick a wife? Oh, I guess that's not an important decision.

When it comes to marriage, I think it is especially important to take a logical as well as emotional approach, and I think this is what the church teaches as well.

[citizen28]

It's a similar thing with me. And I also seek for life to be meaningful... I seek to serve others. Those things make my life have purpose.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The special experience wasn't exactly related to distinguishing true and false revelation, but on the other hand, it has helped me alot (my trials have gotten in some aspects harder since that time) in other things.

I think I could explain to you some concept of it. But, I don't think I could explain to you the full thing. It's like trying to explain an apple to someone who has never tasted an apple. But the moment they taste the apple, they finally know what the person meant, aka, this is the tanginess he meant by 'The apple is tangy', and this is the sweetness he meant by 'The apple is sweet'. We can understand concepts like tangy and sweet, but until we actually taste the apple, we won't know what the specific tanginess of the apple truly is, and the same with the specific sweetness. So in a sense, I could not explain it completely. Nor could I guarantee it would work for you; I do not think God works the same ways with all people necessarily. I know that I'm insanely stubborn and dense sometimes, and that can cause problems, and so God might have to do a few things to get things to me that he doesn't have to do to other people, because of my weaknesses like that. Of course, such weaknesses can be strengths in certain situations, but sometimes they are definitely weaknesses =).

What keeps me from questioning my experience? Ultimately, it was just a decision I made. I'm going to be the only one who experienced what I experienced, at least for the main time. Thus, I am responsible for choosing what I do... and I'll reap both some positive and some negative consequences for it - no matter which path I take. I just decided that this path was better for me. The other path; doubting everything, isn't really appealing. Sure, I could have made a mistake, and it could have been something I misinterpreted, but if I doubt that, I am going to have to doubt everything to be consistent (believe me, I drive myself nuts about having to be consistent with myself lol - it's not the best of approaches perhaps).

Definitely. And I've met people who go the other direction. Who doubt everything, or in the least case, still live in what is considered the 'objective' universe, but say it is not justified to believe in anything. Now they are fine people, but that wouldn't be a stable existence for me, I'm afraid. I depend on knowing things, and even though I don't believe there is such a thing as 'objective', as in the way most people use it, I still think things are very objective in the sense that they are real to me. I may not have a perfectly clear vision on them, but I will do with what I have, I guess you could say, because it's better than the alternative for me =).

So in a sense... I haven't given up objective truth and meaning... I've just given up trying to prove what it is. What has become objective/real to me has become what I experience, and learn, and think about. Sure, I could be wrong, but it's the best I have right now, one could say =).

I think it's clear that Mormonism works well for you, imparting meaning and also making sense. I think this is the case for a lot of people. For me, naturalistic explanations are easier to grasp and mesh into my life experience. In fact, life has become a lot less confusing to me as I've gradually let go of the Mormon theological framework. I suppose this is to say that what works well for many others didn't necessarily work well for me. However, from a practical standpoint, I believe that everyone actually has a lot more in common than not, regardless of theological views or anything else for that matter (although we tend to focus on the differences).

[mfbukowski]

It's a similar thing with me. And I also seek for life to be meaningful... I seek to serve others. Those things make my life have purpose.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The special experience wasn't exactly related to distinguishing true and false revelation, but on the other hand, it has helped me alot (my trials have gotten in some aspects harder since that time) in other things.

I think I could explain to you some concept of it. But, I don't think I could explain to you the full thing. It's like trying to explain an apple to someone who has never tasted an apple. But the moment they taste the apple, they finally know what the person meant, aka, this is the tanginess he meant by 'The apple is tangy', and this is the sweetness he meant by 'The apple is sweet'. We can understand concepts like tangy and sweet, but until we actually taste the apple, we won't know what the specific tanginess of the apple truly is, and the same with the specific sweetness. So in a sense, I could not explain it completely. Nor could I guarantee it would work for you; I do not think God works the same ways with all people necessarily. I know that I'm insanely stubborn and dense sometimes, and that can cause problems, and so God might have to do a few things to get things to me that he doesn't have to do to other people, because of my weaknesses like that. Of course, such weaknesses can be strengths in certain situations, but sometimes they are definitely weaknesses =).

What keeps me from questioning my experience? Ultimately, it was just a decision I made. I'm going to be the only one who experienced what I experienced, at least for the main time. Thus, I am responsible for choosing what I do... and I'll reap both some positive and some negative consequences for it - no matter which path I take. I just decided that this path was better for me. The other path; doubting everything, isn't really appealing. Sure, I could have made a mistake, and it could have been something I misinterpreted, but if I doubt that, I am going to have to doubt everything to be consistent (believe me, I drive myself nuts about having to be consistent with myself lol - it's not the best of approaches perhaps).

Definitely. And I've met people who go the other direction. Who doubt everything, or in the least case, still live in what is considered the 'objective' universe, but say it is not justified to believe in anything. Now they are fine people, but that wouldn't be a stable existence for me, I'm afraid. I depend on knowing things, and even though I don't believe there is such a thing as 'objective', as in the way most people use it, I still think things are very objective in the sense that they are real to me. I may not have a perfectly clear vision on them, but I will do with what I have, I guess you could say, because it's better than the alternative for me =).

So in a sense... I haven't given up objective truth and meaning... I've just given up trying to prove what it is. What has become objective/real to me has become what I experience, and learn, and think about. Sure, I could be wrong, but it's the best I have right now, one could say =).

Great stuff! Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

Ha, ha that is my thought. I might be able to dismiss Joseph Smith but how do you dismiss so easily what he gave us. Perhaps he confesses to a hoax but God still used him to instill doctrine that is profound and true.

Exactly. We would not dismiss the work of a great philosopher because he was a jerk and a scoundrel in his personal life. In fact, some were!!

[mfbukowski]

When it comes to marriage, I think it is especially important to take a logical as well as emotional approach, and I think this is what the church teaches as well.

But you cannot take a scientific approach to it at all. Objective observation can only tell you what other people think. I am not disparaging being "logical" or "rational" whatever that means- I am saying that REPEATABLE OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION - which is what science is based on is useless in these matters.

In fact, it the only "rational" approach to these personal matters is the rational approach I personally take Philosophically which is called "Pragmatism"- if you want to know more about this rational approach you should start out with William James.

http://en.wikipedia....Will_to_Believe

http://en.wikipedia....ious_Experience

Reality versus symbols of reality

The lectures discussed the distinction between symbolism and reality. Symbols, such as the word "steak" on a menu, do not embody the actuality of the objects they represent. The word "steak" on a menu merely points to some slab of meat in the back of the restaurant. In a similar way, James posits that all of science is fundamentally detached from reality since the tools of science are merely pointers to some actual objective realm. He criticized his audience for the scientific tendency to ignore the unseen aspects of life and the universe. As an example, he discussed the way the notion of a lemon causes salivation in the mouth of an individual; while there is no lemon, there is clearly a process occurring worthy of academic inquiry.

This is the basis for much of what you hear around here about the "taste of salt" or the taste of an apple that Tao was talking about- and is the basis many philosophers use for a rational understanding of religious experience.

There is a vast difference between the experience of eating a sizzling steak in a restaurant with your wife- the experience of the restaurant ambiance, perhaps the love you have for your wife, the taste of the steak, the people moving around the sights the smells and sounds etc- than the words "Steak Dinner- $20." on the menu. Those words represent the reductionism of science - reducing the richness of experience to the lowest common denominator of what we can all observe and agree on.

"What did you do last night? Oh we went out for dinner- it was nice" does not exactly capture that whole rich experience.

All science looks at is the steak, its quality, its price etc. It cannot capture the full experience as you experience it. Words can't even do that- they are all abstract signs and symbols pointing to the experience.

That is the way religious experience is- it is ultimately not describable nor is it scientifically researchable. And no, it is not chemicals in your brain either- describing those chemical reactions does not capture the experience itself.-see my siggy.

So THAT is the idea I am trying to get across- there are many important experiences we have in life that have nothing to do with something which is scientifically observable. There are rational beliefs we have- like for example that killing babies for fun is wrong- which cannot be established scientifically.

You may show that killing babies is bad for society, but you cannot show that it is "wrong". There is no right or wrong in science. There are no "shoulds".

Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

What (If Anything) Would Convince You That The Church Is Not What It Claims To Be?

What if I am already convinced that it is what it claims to be?

Edited March 3, 2012 by zerinus

[TAO]

I think it's clear that Mormonism works well for you, imparting meaning and also making sense. I think this is the case for a lot of people. For me, naturalistic explanations are easier to grasp and mesh into my life experience. In fact, life has become a lot less confusing to me as I've gradually let go of the Mormon theological framework. I suppose this is to say that what works well for many others didn't necessarily work well for me. However, from a practical standpoint, I believe that everyone actually has a lot more in common than not, regardless of theological views or anything else for that matter (although we tend to focus on the differences).

I'd agree we have a lot more in common than expected... people are all really looking for the same thing... a happy, fulfilling life. We just all happen to look in different places. And so we disagree and stuff =p. But, what is life without a few things to do, and to think about, I wouldn't want to live in such a life. So in a sense, I am glad that we don't all agree with each other all of the time. It makes life better, in a sense, though harder as well =).

[citizen28]

But you cannot take a scientific approach to it at all. Objective observation can only tell you what other people think. I am not disparaging being "logical" or "rational" whatever that means- I am saying that REPEATABLE OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION - which is what science is based on is useless in these matters. In fact, it the only "rational" approach to these personal matters is the rational approach I personally take Philosophically which is called "Pragmatism"- if you want to know more about this rational approach you should start out with William James. http://en.wikipedia....Will_to_Believe http://en.wikipedia....ious_Experience This is the basis for much of what you hear around here about the "taste of salt" or the taste of an apple that Tao was talking about- and is the basis many philosophers use for a rational understanding of religious experience. There is a vast difference between the experience of eating a sizzling steak in a restaurant with your wife- the experience of the restaurant ambiance, perhaps the love you have for your wife, the taste of the steak, the people moving around the sights the smells and sounds etc- than the words "Steak Dinner- $20." on the menu. Those words represent the reductionism of science - reducing the richness of experience to the lowest common denominator of what we can all observe and agree on. "What did you do last night? Oh we went out for dinner- it was nice" does not exactly capture that whole rich experience. All science looks at is the steak, its quality, its price etc. It cannot capture the full experience as you experience it. Words can't even do that- they are all abstract signs and symbols pointing to the experience. That is the way religious experience is- it is ultimately not describable nor is it scientifically researchable. And no, it is not chemicals in your brain either- describing those chemical reactions does not capture the experience itself.-see my siggy. So THAT is the idea I am trying to get across- there are many important experiences we have in life that have nothing to do with something which is scientifically observable. There are rational beliefs we have- like for example that killing babies for fun is wrong- which cannot be established scientifically. You may show that killing babies is bad for society, but you cannot show that it is "wrong". There is no right or wrong in science. There are no "shoulds".

In my view, everything that happens in the brain (when eating a steak dinner with your wife, for example) is the result of some physical process that can be described by a physical law. It is true that the brain is the most complex system known to mankind, and there remain many exciting mysteries behind its function, but it is my belief and hope that those mysteries will one day be solved almost completely. Call me a materialist or reductionist (I'm certainly no philosopher), but for me, the only things I care about are those within the realm of science, and unromantic as it may be I believe (like many scientists) that every human emotion, desire, hope, dream, fear, etc is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain. Though science hasn't yet perfectly explained everything, I'm more intellectually satisfied and even inspired by the explanations offered up by science than anything else so far, and I think it's clear that the bulk of human progress is due to information gained by the scientific method. Ideas are emotionally satisfying to me when they make sense, and the naturalistic worldview has suited me best thus far.

As you might expect, I believe that human morality is the result of evolution, and the reason that most people don't feel the inclination to kill babies for fun is an indication that it was never evolutionarily advantageous to do so.

[citizen28]

What if I am already convinced that it is what it claims to be?

Then I assume nothing could convince you otherwise.

[citizen28]

I'd agree we have a lot more in common than expected... people are all really looking for the same thing... a happy, fulfilling life. We just all happen to look in different places. And so we disagree and stuff =p. But, what is life without a few things to do, and to think about, I wouldn't want to live in such a life. So in a sense, I am glad that we don't all agree with each other all of the time. It makes life better, in a sense, though harder as well =).

I completely agree.

[mfbukowski]

In my view, everything that happens in the brain (when eating a steak dinner with your wife, for example) is the result of some physical process that can be described by a physical law. It is true that the brain is the most complex system known to mankind, and there remain many exciting mysteries behind its function, but it is my belief and hope that those mysteries will one day be solved almost completely. Call me a materialist or reductionist (I'm certainly no philosopher), but for me, the only things I care about are those within the realm of science, and unromantic as it may be I believe (like many scientists) that every human emotion, desire, hope, dream, fear, etc is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain. Though science hasn't yet perfectly explained everything, I'm more intellectually satisfied and even inspired by the explanations offered up by science than anything else so far, and I think it's clear that the bulk of human progress is due to information gained by the scientific method. Ideas are emotionally satisfying to me when they make sense, and the naturalistic worldview has suited me best thus far.

As you might expect, I believe that human morality is the result of evolution, and the reason that most people don't feel the inclination to kill babies for fun is an indication that it was never evolutionarily advantageous to do so.

There's nothing here I disagree with. But all this is besides the point. It is not about what "IS" but the way you see it- it is an issue of a point of view

The entire point is that the scientific realm only describes a small portion of what is going on. An analogy might be the old flatland analogy. It is certainly true that all flatlanders can see all there is which exists in two dimensions, but cannot understand what happens in three or four dimensions much less -what is it that we now think exist- 11?

If I were speaking to a flatlander, I could clearly agree with all they said about their two dimensional world.

The problem is that science ignores the subjective, and it is in the subjective that we live and breathe and find meaning and make choices in our lives.

I have been over this so many times here that those who understand me, which incidentally are the LDS here, are bored with it, and those who don't understand me still don't get it.

I am convinced it is a major psychological gulf in the way different people see the world which is unbridgeable. You notice in my siggy the point that it is impossible for science to capture the subjective point of view. Incidentally that was written by an atheist. Some people understand that and some don't, and I guess it doesn't necessarily correlate with if you are a theist or not, but I have found virtually all practicing LDS get it.

I was driving down the freeway once and I saw a huge triangular object- like a sign or something which was shiny and caught my eye- but I couldn't figure out what it was. I was in flatland in regard to that object.

It was not easy to get to- I had to do some driving to get near it. When I did, I realized it was not a flat sign at all, but a pyramid.

And besides that, it was a sports arena.

Seeing it from one point of view, I had no idea what I saw, but what I saw was not "wrong"- I just did not have good enough vantage point to see what the "reality" of that triangular object was.

After I stepped inside the pyramid, I had seen it from all angles and I knew much more.

All I am saying is that science is like that. It only sees things from one point of view. But there is a lot more to "reality" than what science sees

http://www.longbeach...onspyramid.html

Edited March 4, 2012 by mfbukowski