This Is Why We Need Science Folks

[volgadon]

This is at the core of it, not religion per-se.

Lay by your Pleading, Law lyes a-bleeding

Burn all of your Studies down, and throw away your Reading;

Small power the Word has, and can afford us

Not half so many Priviledges as the Sword has:

It fosters your Masters, it plasters Disasters,

And maks your Servants, quickly greater than their Masters;

It venters, it enters, it circles, it centers,

And makes a Prentice free in spight of his Indentures.

2. This takes off tall things, and sets small things,

This masters Money, though Money masters all things;

'Tis not in season, to talk of Reason,

Or call it Legal, when the Sword will have it Treason;

It conquers the Crown too, the Furres and the Gown too,

This set up a Presbyter, and this pull'd him down too;

This subtil Deceiver, turn'd Bonnet to Beaver,

Down drops a Bishop, and up starts a Weaver.

3. This fits a Lay-man to preach and pray man,

'Tis this can make a Lord of him that was a Drayman;

Forth from the dull pit, of Follies full pit,

This brought an Hebrew Iron-monger to the Pulpit;

Such pittifull things be, more happier than Kings be,

This got the Herauldry of Thimblebee and Slingsbee;

No Gospel can guide it, no Law can decide it,

In Church or State, untill the Sword hath sanctify'd it.

4. Down goes the Law-tricks, for from the Matrix

Sprung holy Hewson's power, and tumbled down St. Patricks;

The Sword prevails so highly in Wales too,

Shinkin ap Powel cryes, swears Cuts-plutteranails too;

In Scotland this Waster, did make such disaster,

They sent their Money back for which they sold their Master;

It batter'd so their Dunkirke, and did so the Don firke,

That he is fled, and swears, the Devil is in the Dunkirke.

5. He that can tower o'er him that is lower,

Would be but thought a Fool to put away his Power;

Take Books and rent 'um, who would invent 'um,

When as the Sword replyes, Negatur argumentum?

Your grand Colledge Butlers, must stoop to your Sutlers,

There's not a Library living like the Cutlers;

The bloud that is spilt, Sir, hath gain'd all the gilt, Sir,

Thus have you seen me run the Sword up to the hilt, Sir.

[ANACO]

The evidence for evolution is not immoral, it is amoral. I can't help it if McConkie was wrong. I have no obligation to follow his silly interpretations ......

Then you obviously have an obligation to follow the interpretations of the theory of evolution: Eugenics for one. And when the state decides you're of no further worth, you'll be ground into a concentrate and turned into a Soylent Green wafer. yum. Or experimented upon by the likes of Dr. Mengele.

[mfbukowski]

If Joseph posits the very acts of creation that we discuss as founded upon the principles of language as we have discussed before in other threads and that that act of speaking and waiting until you are obeyed is the supreme example of the exercise of faith even for God's creative efforts, ...

This is precisely the point I was making which you felt you did not understand. That quote of Joseph is precisely saying exactly that.

I suggest you read Calmoriah's quote in my siggy, slowly and carefully.

We need to understand all of reality as we know it to be a linguistic construction by both God and man- God as the Man of Holiness and man as a god in embryo.

"All" science is is a string of verbal linguistic descriptions, verified by our human brains organizing the chaos of our perceptions into reality as we know it

And reality as we cannot know it therefore becomes irrelevant to us.

This relates to the previous post about atheistic religion because those atheists understand this principle perfectly well- that the truth of any proposition is measured by its utility. They understand the idea that religious ideas give us peace and meaning in our lives- they regard humanism as being a "religion" which is a substitute for religion as we know it, but what is important is that they see humanism as a religion.

The utility of humanism is that it is a point of view which orders our lives and gives them meaning- just as belief in God does for us.

I of course am a theist and a Mormon, but the strength of this point of view is that Theism cannot be proven as "true" any more than humanism can be, but yet both can be seen as being true in their utility to give one values and give meaning to one's life

They are both explanations and interpretations and understanding of the "data" of experience, organized in such a way that believing in those principles gives a new dimension and depth to our understanding of our lives

The idea that reality is created by "the word" is called "linguistic constructivism" in philosophy and it is those principles which I espouse and try to teach others, though apparently quite poorly.

And in the gospel of John of course we learn that God created everything by "The Word".

Apply all this to that quote of Joseph above and perhaps one might have the epiphany I had over 40 years ago when I, as a linguistic constructivist philosophy student discovered Mormonism as essentially a linguistic constructivist church.

Edited July 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I hate obscurantism. It is a blight. I've defended the importance of using one's brains many times on this board, but the whole science good, religion bad thing is silly.

One can, and perhaps some here, have exchanged one set of dogmas for the dogmas of Scientism. Once an absolutist, always an absolutist I suppose.

I am still waiting for a scientific explanation of why murder is wrong, and why if we murdered someone we would feel bad.

Of course such feelings are irrational and one should never base anything on feelings.

The reality of course is that both scientific and ethical statements are verified by their utility in our lives, but for some reason some folks exclude the utility of religious beliefs from that equation.

Why they do that, I will never understand. It is ok to accept the unprovable proposition that "humanism (or service) gives some people's lives meaning" when dealing with people like Mother Theresa but if you say that "religion gives meaning to my life" you are suddenly suspect.

The propositions "We should do service in our lives", "We should not murder people for fun" and "We should follow the ten commandments" are all equally unprovable with scientific evidence and all equally true, but the one about the ten commandments, because it is perceived as "religious" is suddenly suspect.

When you figure that one out, let me know, ok?

Edited July 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

We need to understand all of reality as we know it to be a linguistic construction by both God and man- God as the Man of Holiness and man as a god in embryo.

"All" science is is a string of verbal linguistic descriptions, verified by our human brains organizing the chaos of our perceptions into reality as we know it

And reality as we cannot know it therefore becomes irrelevant to us.

Again, if I am understanding your point then I offer this possibility, otherwise my 11 year old son got on my PC when I wasn't looking and impostered this response.

At the level that most of us operate most of the time, I might concede this point. However, several times in my life I have had an experience that provided the union of my inability to create a construct to comprehend the material with God expanding and providing imagery that I did not previously have. He expanded my perception to a higher comprehension independent of me be able to formulate meaning around the principle in question. In fact, one of my most common disclaimers on spiritual matters is try as I might I cannot put into words exactly what I know. However, I know when the spirit indicates that what I perceive is correct nonetheless.

From that point, once I have his construct to build on I can proceed with new building of new constructs but they all owe their origin to the gifts of his constructs provided in my lack of perception.

However, my epiphany on this subject was impressed upon me in somewhat different terms than it seems yours might have been.

Several years ago I understood that it really didn't matter what I think I know. If it does not match how Christ knows what I thought I knew, then I knew that what I know is nothing. In other words the only meaning of worth is his and that is what I seek to understand, while as much as possible leaving me out of the picture as I seek knowing.

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry S. Shirts:

Be at peace my friend. The only thing you are required to believe is the truth, and that truth can come from a multitude of sources.

Scientists are just like every other human on the planet. We are no more moral or immoral than any other person. We definitely aren't any smarter. But we do have a system for discovering the nature of the universe. Time and experience has shown that we can make statements about reality that can be shown to be accurate to the limits of our knowledge. As more knowledge is gained the better our statements about that reality become. It isn't a perfect system, and has lead to some pretty disastrous results.

The Twentieth Century alone was witness to more moral disasters than in any time in history.

[thesometimesaint]

ANACO:

Godwin's Law violation.

All evolution says is that those that reproduce win.

[ANACO]

thesometimesaint:

Godwin's Law Violation - created in the 1990s by those who can't argue against the comparison.

All Social Darwinism says is those who are considered of lesser worth shouldn't be able to reproduce.

[mfbukowski]

Again, if I am understanding your point then I offer this possibility, otherwise my 11 year old son got on my PC when I wasn't looking and impostered this response.

At the level that most of us operate most of the time, I might concede this point. However, several times in my life I have had an experience that provided the union of my inability to create a construct to comprehend the material with God expanding and providing imagery that I did not previously have. He expanded my perception to a higher comprehension independent of me be able to formulate meaning around the principle in question. In fact, one of my most common disclaimers on spiritual matters is try as I might I cannot put into words exactly what I know. However, I know when the spirit indicates that what I perceive is correct nonetheless.

From that point, once I have his construct to build on I can proceed with new building of new constructs but they all owe their origin to the gifts of his constructs provided in my lack of perception.

However, my epiphany on this subject was impressed upon me in somewhat different terms than it seems yours might have been.

Several years ago I understood that it really didn't matter what I think I know. If it does not match how Christ knows what I thought I knew, then I knew that what I know is nothing. In other words the only meaning of worth is his and that is what I seek to understand, while as much as possible leaving me out of the picture as I seek knowing.

That kid of yours is brilliant.

Totally agree- you understand what I am saying perfectly I think.

Remember I am talking about only what can be expressed in language- and therefore shared. Essentially this is what science is about- only those things which we can talk about and about shared perceptions.

We can describe an experiment which shows our experience- I put this thing called a "thermometer" which has the following specifications- 1-2-3-4-5- into exactly one quart of water and put it on the stove, and within this period of what we define as "time" - 15 minutes- the water bubbled- those terms defined as h20 and what size of bubbles (all these measurements are arbitratry- but we have agreed on them as "true").

You repeat the experiment and experience (notice the relatedness of the words themselves- experiment and experience- ) the same thing.

This is science. Defined precisely linguistically and shared and observable by all.

Yet as you have shown not all experience FITS into what can be put into language.

The very fact that we, in writing these very posts, have to decide what words to pick to "express ourselves" perfectly illustrates that there is "something in our minds" that either makes it to the paper or doesn't.

We choose the words we choose the vocabulary, the tone, the inuendo, whether or not to be "nice", to make a long post or short post etc etc etc.

Nearly all of experience is NOT linguistic- hence the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words. And being there is even worth more words, but will never capture the full experience just as I said before, after James, that a description on a menu does not capture what it is to eat a steak.

NO experience can ever be fully put into words- and religious experience is one type of experience. All experience is personal experience. Just think of Galileo- the first time he saw the rings of Saturn NO ONE else had ever seen that.

At that moment, before he put it into words, before he described it and published it, it was a private experience- not "verified" by anyone else- blurry bulges on either side of the spherical planet. He must have wondered if there was a smudge on the glass, if his eyes were deceiving him, etc.

So yes of course I agree that God expands our consciousness beyond what is comprehensible and certainly beyond what can be expressed in language since we cannot even really express in language the taste of salt. If such a mundane experience cannot be described, how can we describe something as sublime as a direct experience of what God has given us as an experience?

So what I am talking about "constructing" is what we ALL construct together in what we collectively call "culture" which is the collective linguistic descriptions of every human who ever lived and what they have created- from Beethoven's ninth to the plays of Shakespeare to the theories of evolution and relativity.

ALL of that is the property of humanity as it were- all of it is sharable.

But our private experiences, including religious experiences are not directly sharable, except as limited by language. But what is important to understand is that those experiences are no less "true" or useful or meaningful in our lives because they are NOT sharable.

In fact those private intimate feelings in their subtlty - the love of our children, and our spouses, the sweetness of a child's laughter the awe at looking into the night sky- all of these are the very fabric of our lives.

Those private experiences are what is important and worth savoring and are the experiences we will take with us to the eternities.

Edited July 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Evangeline]

But our private experiences, including religious experiences are not directly sharable, except as limited by language. But what is important to understand is that those experiences are no less "true" or useful or meaningful in our lives because they are NOT sharable.

Another example that I can think of is learning to play a piece of music. The music will show what notes need to be played, often a general tempo, dynamic markings, etc. What it will not show precisely is how the music will feel. The greatest musicians are not the computers that can "interpret" a piece of music and play it with robotic precision. The greatest musicians are those with a profound ability to interpret and convey feeling (which language cannot fully express) as well as their amazing technical abilities.

I can say that a piece of music "spoke to me," but it is a very individual experience and something I would not be able to describe fully in words.

Edit: Oops. I realized that I had erased what I said earlier. mfbukowski, thank you for your beautiful post. It really "spoke to me."

Edited July 15, 2012 by Evangeline

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Then you obviously have an obligation to follow the interpretations of the theory of evolution: Eugenics for one. And when the state decides you're of no further worth, you'll be ground into a concentrate and turned into a Soylent Green wafer. yum. Or experimented upon by the likes of Dr. Mengele.

People using evolutionary ideas for their own stupidity and power have nothing to do with its verification as fact. Social Darwinism is NOT what Darwin himself ever claimed or advocated.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry S. Shirts:

Be at peace my friend. The only thing you are required to believe is the truth, and that truth can come from a multitude of sources.

Scientists are just like every other human on the planet. We are no more moral or immoral than any other person. We definitely aren't any smarter. But we do have a system for discovering the nature of the universe. Time and experience has shown that we can make statements about reality that can be shown to be accurate to the limits of our knowledge. As more knowledge is gained the better our statements about that reality become. It isn't a perfect system, and has lead to some pretty disastrous results.

The Twentieth Century alone was witness to more moral disasters than in any time in history.

I understand entirely, and ALL of those moral disasters were because of religion. That is all I am pointing out. I actually am at peace, I'm just sharing ideas is all.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Again, if I am understanding your point then I offer this possibility, otherwise my 11 year old son got on my PC when I wasn't looking and impostered this response.

At the level that most of us operate most of the time, I might concede this point. However, several times in my life I have had an experience that provided the union of my inability to create a construct to comprehend the material with God expanding and providing imagery that I did not previously have. He expanded my perception to a higher comprehension independent of me be able to formulate meaning around the principle in question. In fact, one of my most common disclaimers on spiritual matters is try as I might I cannot put into words exactly what I know. However, I know when the spirit indicates that what I perceive is correct nonetheless.

From that point, once I have his construct to build on I can proceed with new building of new constructs but they all owe their origin to the gifts of his constructs provided in my lack of perception.

However, my epiphany on this subject was impressed upon me in somewhat different terms than it seems yours might have been.

Several years ago I understood that it really didn't matter what I think I know. If it does not match how Christ knows what I thought I knew, then I knew that what I know is nothing. In other words the only meaning of worth is his and that is what I seek to understand, while as much as possible leaving me out of the picture as I seek knowing.

The leap is attributing what your brain does, to God, a pure speculation with no evidence. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that we ALL experience these fells, impressions, what-have-you, but this is not proof that God gave them. Cognative science has shown the real power of the brain is far greater than we have supposed. To hypothesize a higher being gives those feelings is not accurate, but a faith (notice this! NO EVIDENCE) statement that it is God. And ALL religions in the Western World right now ARE saying those feelings are God communicating to them personally, yet no two of us are having the same information from God, and in fact, are continually contradicting others' religious doctrines and truths that they proclaim GOD wants us to KNOW. So, why can't God simply give the same truth to all of us? I see no reasonable reason why that cannot happen.

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry S. Shirts:

Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Pol Pot weren't what I'd call religious, and they certainly did not claim to be religiously influenced.

Edited July 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry S. Shirts:

Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Pol Pot weren't what I'd call religious, and they certainly did not claim to be religiously influenced.

Define religious as THEY understood it, not on our own Western biases. Besides, you forget Jews in the Old Testament and Christians after the New Testament times, why leave them two out? They are the ones that have directly effected our Western World of reality for millenia. It begins in the Old Testament and never let up until the enlightenment and Newton began showing the real power of science for truth and reality.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[volgadon]

People using evolutionary ideas for their own stupidity and power have nothing to do with its verification as fact. Social Darwinism is NOT what Darwin himself ever claimed or advocated.

I agree with you. Shame that you've denied religion the same courtesy.

[volgadon]

Kerry S. Shirts:

Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Pol Pot weren't what I'd call religious, and they certainly did not claim to be religiously influenced.

I'd disagree with you on Stalin.

[thesometimesaint]

Volgadon:

Stalin was a avowed atheist.

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry S. Shirt:

None of those men claimed to be religious in a Western or Eastern sense of the word.. In fact the only one that claimed any religious impulses was Tojo, and he was into emperor worship when he claimed any at all. Most of his documented beliefs were atheistic.

PS. I didn't leave out ancient Jews or post NT Christians. As I said I was limiting my discussion to the 20th Century. From what I can tell neither of those two groups were immune either. However the level of barbarity of the 20th Century certainly exceeds that of any other time so far.

Edited July 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I agree with you. Shame that you've denied religion the same courtesy.

How so? I am not sure I follow ya.....

[volgadon]

Volgadon:

Stalin was a avowed atheist.

Overstated.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry S. Shirt:

None of those men claimed to be religious in a Western or Eastern sense of the word.. In fact the only one that claimed any religious impulses was Tojo, and he was into emperor worship when he claimed any at all. Most of his documented beliefs were atheistic.

PS. I didn't leave out ancient Jews or post NT Christians. As I said I was limiting my discussion to the 20th Century. From what I can tell neither of those two groups were immune either. However the level of barbarity of the 20th Century certainly exceeds that of any other time so far.

That's a rather subjective call. Certainly the number of deaths exceed thanks to the greater amount of population, but in reading the Old Testament the level of barbarity in the 20th century has nothing on what is recorded in the Bible. Nor in the Inquisitional tortures throughout the Middle Ages for HUNDREDS OF YEARS...........

[volgadon]

How so? I am not sure I follow ya.....

You are willing to differentiate between science itself and the horrific misuse of it, yet issue a blanket condemnation of religion.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Absolutely so. The genocide and infantcide in the Old Testament...

What the genocide carried at the end of WW 2. You are stretching .

[thesometimesaint]

Volgadon:

Actually I'm being very diplomatic.