This Is Why We Need Science Folks

[mfbukowski]

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."

Thanks - and that is a great example that I naturally would not have thought of since I am musically challenged.

[mfbukowski]

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.

What you are NOT understanding is that this is irrelevant.

The importance is that we have these feelings in our hearts which are inexpressible. You cannot prove they did NOT come from God any more than we can prove they did.

The entire point is that their unknowable "source" is ultimately irrelevant. The fact is that we have such feelings and they give meaning to our lives and their "source" is beyond the question of evidence.

It is just as likely that God causes the feelings through chemicals in our brains as that our brains produce them randomly. It really doesn't matter- and THAT is the whole point. Neither can be proven.

[CASteinman]

I'd disagree with you on Stalin.

I don't understand why you feel this way about Stalin.

I accept that Hitler, Pol Pot and maybe Mao had some vestige of religion in their beliefs and views (even if what remained was not really theist), but Stalin seems to be the most purely natural and a-religious character -- a psychopath with absolutely no sense of any sort of mystical or divine or metaphysical components to life whatsoever.

He would be the last person I would think could be objected to.

But this is a change of topic.

[volgadon]

I don't understand why you feel this way about Stalin.

I accept that Hitler, Pol Pot and maybe Mao had some vestige of religion in their beliefs and views (even if what remained was not really theist), but Stalin seems to be the most purely natural and a-religious character -- a psychopath with absolutely no sense of any sort of mystical or divine or metaphysical components to life whatsoever.

He would be the last person I would think could be objected to.

But this is a change of topic.

I would recommend reading some more on Stalin. As Sebag-Montefiore noted, the "old God remained a presence in his atheistic consciousness." Stalin was heavily influenced by his seminary upbringing and the mystical outlook of both Georgians and Russians. Edvard Radzinsky's biography does a fantastic job of highlighting the religious aspect co-opted by Stalin in his reign. There are other hints, too.

[thesometimesaint]

Volgadon:

Whatever he learned as a young person it seems that he left it far behind soon after coming to power in the former USSR. Co-opting something is not the same thing as believing it.

[CASteinman]

I would recommend reading some more on Stalin. As Sebag-Montefiore noted, the "old God remained a presence in his atheistic consciousness." Stalin was heavily influenced by his seminary upbringing and the mystical outlook of both Georgians and Russians. Edvard Radzinsky's biography does a fantastic job of highlighting the religious aspect co-opted by Stalin in his reign. There are other hints, too.

Then he would be no different than the others.

[volgadon]

More from the rogue's gallery, R. Abraham Isaac Kook this time.

http://www.freewebs.com/jewish-spiritual-and-beautiful/Rav-Kook-Teachings.pdf

A person upon whom the light of faith is revealed in its purity loves all people, with no exceptions whatsoever. His only desire is their elevation and repair.

The avenues of their repair become genuinely moral and true in accordance with the expression of faith in his heart.

Orot Ha'emunah, p. 44

Generally speaking, faith is the poem of life, the poem of existence, the poem of being. The poetic spirit is the most deeply penetrating feeling. Within our inner being, it delves most profoundly into the nature of what we aspire to, in a manner that prose cannot achieve. The true lens of life, therefore, is within the poem of life-- but not in merely temporal life, whose expression is prose. Woe to the person who wishes to deprive life of the glory of its poetry. Such a person destroys the entire content of life and all the truth within it. Prose has worth only because it rests upon the poetry of life.

Orot Ha'emunah, p. 40

[Evangeline]

More from the rogue's gallery, R. Abraham Isaac Kook this time.

http://www.freewebs.com/jewish-spiritual-and-beautiful/Rav-Kook-Teachings.pdf

A person upon whom the light of faith is revealed in its purity loves all people, with no exceptions whatsoever. His only desire is their elevation and repair.

The avenues of their repair become genuinely moral and true in accordance with the expression of faith in his heart.

Orot Ha'emunah, p. 44

Generally speaking, faith is the poem of life, the poem of existence, the poem of being. The poetic spirit is the most deeply penetrating feeling. Within our inner being, it delves most profoundly into the nature of what we aspire to, in a manner that prose cannot achieve. The true lens of life, therefore, is within the poem of life-- but not in merely temporal life, whose expression is prose. Woe to the person who wishes to deprive life of the glory of its poetry. Such a person destroys the entire content of life and all the truth within it. Prose has worth only because it rests upon the poetry of life.

Orot Ha'emunah, p. 40

Amazing quotes! Thank you!

[mfbukowski]

More from the rogue's gallery, R. Abraham Isaac Kook this time.

http://www.freewebs....k-Teachings.pdf

A person upon whom the light of faith is revealed in its purity loves all people, with no exceptions whatsoever. His only desire is their elevation and repair.

The avenues of their repair become genuinely moral and true in accordance with the expression of faith in his heart.

Orot Ha'emunah, p. 44

Generally speaking, faith is the poem of life, the poem of existence, the poem of being. The poetic spirit is the most deeply penetrating feeling. Within our inner being, it delves most profoundly into the nature of what we aspire to, in a manner that prose cannot achieve. The true lens of life, therefore, is within the poem of life-- but not in merely temporal life, whose expression is prose. Woe to the person who wishes to deprive life of the glory of its poetry. Such a person destroys the entire content of life and all the truth within it. Prose has worth only because it rests upon the poetry of life.

Orot Ha'emunah, p. 40

Absolutely. Wish I could give you about a hundred points for that one.

Religion is art and poetry- it is metaphor. That is why my avatar is a Picasso self-portrait.

If you understand the world I do, all linguistic utterance is metaphor, but it is particularly easy and apt to see religion as art- again my Calmoriah quote in my siggy---

It's odd Kerry would not understand this with his understanding of Kabbalah. Perhaps he never did understand it.

Edited July 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Amazing quotes! Thank you!

He is one of my favourites, glad you enjoyed the quotes.

Absolutely. Wish I could give you about a hundred points for that one.

Religion is art and poetry- it is metaphor.

If you understand the world I do, all linguistic utterance is metaphor, but it is particularly easy and apt to see religion as art- again my Calmoriah quote in my siggy---

I'm not very good at writing verse, but I do see things as a poet. There is something indescribably beautiful, moving, powerful when it comes to language. R. Kook had an interesting theory of prophets as poets which mirrors somewhat a dual role of our prophets.

[Evangeline]

There is something indescribably beautiful, moving, powerful when it comes to language.

That's one of the reasons why I love the King James version of the Bible and the similar poetic style in our other scriptures.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not very good at writing verse, but I do see things as a poet. There is something indescribably beautiful, moving, powerful when it comes to language. R. Kook had an interesting theory of prophets as poets which mirrors somewhat a dual role of our prophets.

Well think about it. Religion is an unverifiable explanation for the meaning of our lives, which gives us comfort and peace, and points beyond what is verifiable by the senses.

In other words,

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Sound a tad familiar?

It IS "evidence" of things not seen and IS a description of things hoped for. The evidence is "emotional"- we don't have another word to describe religious experience other than "emotion" though we know that is an inadequate word.

To put it another way, it is poetry. The scriptures are poetry, not scientific facts, and they were never intended to be scientific facts.

Seeing them that way is just - what? Naive? Fundamentalist? It just misses the point entirely.

It's like the line from Shakespeare- "What light through yonder window breaks? Tis Juliette and she is the sun!"

A scientific literalist might laugh at that line and say "Ha Ha! That dummy thought his girlfriend was a burning star! How dumb is that"

Only one who never understood it was poetry in the first place would even bring up that kind of objection.

[mfbukowski]

Richard Rorty borrows a term from Harold Bloom, who describes those who create their own descriptions of the world as "strong poets". These are they who change our paradigms of what reality is. It might be said that all the major paradigm shifts of science, ethics, religion and culture in general were described by "strong poets". This is also what Kuhn describes in somewhat different terms when he speaks about scientific paradigm shifts- the shift from a Ptolemaic to a Copernican paradigm, or the shift from a Newtonian to a quantum view.

I discussed Rorty earlier- again he is an atheist, but understands this position well. Unfortunately he associates God with the old Greek transcendent notion, like Nietzsche does, in regarding that description of God as "dead".

Yet the LDS understanding is NOT of a transcendent God, but an immanent one who knows his children and is able to interact with them.

This is why a Pragmatic view like Rorty's, though atheistic, is relevant to our beliefs. If Rorty had an understanding of God as we do, things might have been completely different.

This is also how I understand the Restoration- a return to the correct poetic view reflected in the Bible where God creates by His Word. Reality is created linguistically- all descriptions are poetic.

That is why I am so opposed to Platonism. There are many LDS who still understand the world as Platonic or Neoplatonic. All this talk we hear about "first causes" is evidence of that.

We LDS do not understand the strength of our philosophical position.

Edited July 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

Absolutely. Wish I could give you about a hundred points for that one.

Religion is art and poetry- it is metaphor.

If you understand the world I do, all linguistic utterance is metaphor, but it is particularly easy and apt to see religion as art- again my Calmoriah quote in my siggy---

While we have discussed this concept for a couple of days now there is still a portion that bears mentioning, in my opinion. Not that this is not understood, I just haven’t sensed that it is receiving its due focus. The fact is that language is unable to fill a capacity for universally understood, universally agreed upon meaning, yet in and of itself it fills a need of allowing exchange of ideas though we as individuals may not have a perfect understanding between us of what those ideas may be...we get close and move on from there...this is oh so complex...nonetheless this is not the end of the understanding simply because we as individuals don't comprehend words and language exactly the same.

For whatever it is that we may not understand because of the temporal limitations of the language of mortality, nonetheless, when our spirits mutually understand a point we understand each other very well - perhaps upon different levels of completeness of understanding but exceptionally accurately nonetheless. When Joseph describes having his tongue bound and the physical aspect of Satan's effort to destroy him there was a time in my life when I understood the words used to describe the event and thought I understood something of the matter. Now however, having had the same experience communicated to my spirit I understand precisely what he meant and it is indeed different than what I would have thought based on the limitations of understanding the language he used to describe the event. Nonetheless, spirit to spirit, I now understand him perfectly.

Though I could never describe it to someone who has not had the experience any more accurately than Joseph was able to convey to me, I have had others that only started the sentence to describe such an experience and while not even completely the idea beyond 5 or 6 words I know exactly what they are trying to describe with the language they choose because the understanding is spirit to spirit and requires no language to fill in the gaps of meanings not able to be conveyed.

When missionaries teach the gospel they have moments in their teaching when the spirit confirms that the message is understood by the investigator. Spirit to spirit they understand each other.

Now the point...There are things that I will post on these boards where I share a spiritual understanding that I know not all will be able to grasp at its full spiritual implications. However it is always shocking when you observe people who could hear by the spirit but get so hung up on the turn of phrase or the opportunity to vaunt their opinion, that they pass up the wonderful opportunity to hear with the spirit to pick apart the words used.

While some will consider this uncalled for I will mention one poster who does this constantly. Not to pick on that person but because as a poster child perhaps it will communicate my point more accurately. Cinepro is obviously a very capable person in the Gospel. However, whenever I notice him err in his explanation of a point or in his effort to correct another, I lament in my heart that he seems very reluctant to hear with his spiritual ears. He sees the language in use but cannot feel the heart of the speaker to note that more often than not the misunderstanding is his for not hearing the spirit of what is being communicated.

Now, not to ignore my own limitations in this arena. I also fail to always pay attention to the spirit and hear accurately what is being said. I’ve noted that sometimes each of us fails to really try to hear beyond the language to actually grasp full understanding which is available upon a different principle – spirit to spirit understanding.

Where this really comes into play most for me is in relationships. There are people I know very, very well. I know their hearts, their minds, and their spirits. Sometimes, you may hear someone say something about someone you know this way. What the speaker says is an accurate description of what took place as they perceived it. However, sometimes it occurs that I can boldly state that they have misunderstood that event because spiritually I understand that person and know that the conclusion offered is inconsistent with the being of the person about whom they are describing.

In my wife and I’s relationship, as is common I may do something that is not well thought. My wife used to have trouble responding with a sense of hyper sensitivity and would over interpret a negative slight from something that was just absolutely not intended in any way what so ever to offend in the least. Over the years I have communicated the point that she knows me. She knows how I think, how I act, and my heart and mind and that it is a travesty to let Satan tell her a lie that preys upon a tendency to under- appreciate self by drawing more offense than I could ever intend. Now she has learned to not pay so much attention to the outside of what something may appear from my poor use of language and such to understand the spirit of who I am and to feel our spirits in union.

This one aspect of communication then I consider more important and more clearly capable of communicating accurate mutually understood meaning than language. Spoken word is only good for what it is good for. However, it is by design that the Lord gives us a means of understanding more than language can communicate and then expects us to hone the type of hearing that relies more upon spiritual communication than verbal. Language and words are very mortal necessities adequate for all mankind in their weakness. However, as always there is a different blessing, opportunity and burden for those who worship God in general and even mores so for those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Lord expects that we will learn how to use another tool as a superior means of precise understanding. Our dependence on language and our predilection for its relative ease of access lend themselves to a greater dependence than is pleasing to the Lord. His gift of the spirit and the Gift of the Holy Ghost which uses that spirit as a medium are far more advantages for correct understanding, however our general lack of comprehension and effort to exercise these gifts leaves us weak and incompetent in the use of these tools.

One of the aspects that I have felt from my efforts of learning Hebrew is that as a language it is far superior than any other as a language of scripture. Not only are there actual words, just like English, but there is an entire potential of magnified conveyance of meaning simply in understanding the additional implications of each letter as each letter adds connotations of meaning. Beyond each letter, each stroke that makes up the letter also lends an even more refined layer of additional meaning to a word. The depth then is such that to explain the meaning of one word in Hebrew could generate pages of exploratory nuance of additional meaning. The point is if one has really learned to grasp the meaning of that one word, when it is used by the speaker the word itself now conveys a richness of meaning that dwarfs any other languages capacity to communicate if that fullness of understanding of the word is captured in the heart of the speaker. It ceases to be one word but is imbued with the living degree of implication of the meaning as felt in the users heart. If the hearer shares that understanding or can receive it through the spirit then true communication takes place. I also wonder if such a speaker can actually convey through the use of the spirit a greater sense of understanding to the hearer. Sometimes, when I hear or read a conference talk or such we may sense that it is speaking to our heart. We are having an experience beyond the traditional words only experience as the spirit is magnifying the understanding with more than words convey.

However, I have come to conclude that that still is only a portion of the process. In the few times in my life where I have heard words of communication placed in my mind by the spirit, the words were not alone, instead they were provided with a spirit of understanding of what that word was to convey above and beyond my limited grasp of the words limited meaning based on my personal paradigm. Therefore I have wondered what is significant about a language being pure and undefiled language as mentioned in:

• Moses 6:6
  6 And by them their children were taught to read and write, having a language which was pure and undefiled.
  

A pure and undefiled language may be one that takes its fullness of communicative ability not from the words alone but from the requirement that the speaker have a grasp of the language as well as a grasp of the spirit in order to speak in a perfected style of communication that marries both aspects of true communication. Of course several factors of authority and purity, character etc influence ones abilities in the spirit so that communication ceases to be a stand alone process but is imbued with the essence and being and heart of the speaker to communicate with completeness the ideas and thoughts desired to be expressed.

Therefore I do not feel it quite adequate to simply accept that language is a weak form of communication and we are bound by its limitations. I think to stop with that level of acquiescence is to deny the greater impetus to learn to do a better job and to strive to avail ourselves of the gifts God provides to overcome these limitations for those spiritually inclined to sense the value and the worth and necessity in so doing.

If at some future point we will know all truth by sensing the record of the spirit for past, present and future how perfect a plan to not allow language to rob the opportunity to learn to manage and comprehend the most superior form of communication known -The spirit in communication with our spirit and our spirits in communion with each other.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

I need to add to the above one other thought. I also think that spiritually discerned one can hear the words that another uses to deceive. Sometimes so powerful is the nature of the deception that it is more widely grasped and understood and repulsive to the hearers of those words that most on the path will recoil from the message. At other times, it may only be discerned by those more refined in spiritual understanding. I think that an element of that has occurred with this thread that some of the commentary is simply incorrect in the meaning it asserts even at the language level but it is further enhanced by the sense of something being very wrong in the spirit conveyed by the words used. At the foundational level some of the arguments are not technically incorrect, but spiritually we sense the error because the language fails to impart meaning to our sense of spiritual correctness of the thoughts and ideas conveyed upon principles that we have a sense of spiritual understanding.

The effort that ensues to use the language we can choose to illustrate the error of the material that is false then falls back to the paradigm of being unable to communicate past a spiritually blocked receptor and the default process of the limitations of language only communication leaves the message interpreted by the filters of mortal preference of understanding increasing the frustration of not being able to truly communicate and can drive tension into the mix by invoking the gift of the enmity between good and evil which is to be a tool in protecting the seed of the women.

Caveat that most expect that the seed of the women only references Christ however, more completely understood it embraces all of those that become the sons and daughters of Christ more accurately.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

In my earlier post that initiated the science pap versus scriptural / prophetic precedence discussion I posited several comparisons that allowed for direct evaluation between the two. Again not to say that science has quite accurately framed the implications of the scriptural / prophetic possibilities but simply to ILLUSTRATE potential alignment with long held theological realities and how science is potentially moving closer with every new discovery to theological expectations. In the vein of similar considerations I have one more that I consider so close in potential that it certainly bears thoughtful considerations for the comparison of scientific theory to prophetic absolutes. If you would please consider this quote from Brigham Young:

When the earth was framed and brought into existence and man was placed upon it, it was near the throne of our Father in heaven. And when man fell—though that was designed in the economy, there was nothing about it mysterious or unknown to the Gods, they understood it all, it was all planned—but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. When the Lord said—"Let there be light," there was light, for the earth was brought near the sun that it might reflect upon it so as to give us light by day, and the moon to give us light by night. This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, 20. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17:143.)

Now compare that statement of Brigham’s, which we must recall was such a radical departure from any thing even conceived of by mainstream science, until the past 20 years (Hills, 1988). The thought that a planet or star or star and group of trailing orbiting planets could move from one location to another was preposterous and laughable within scientific scope. Now let's look at the change of understanding and theoretical possibilities science is now willing to consider since 1988:

The disruption of a binary star system by the massive black hole at the Galactic Centre, SgrA*[1], can lead to the capture of one star around SgrA* and the ejection of its companion as a hypervelocity star (HVS). We consider the possibility that these stars may have planets and study the dynamics of these planets. Using a direct $N$-body integration code, we simulated a large number of different binary orbits around SgrA*. For some orbital parameters, a planet is ejected at a high speed. In other instances, a HVS is ejected with one or more planets orbiting around it. In these cases, it may be possible to observe the planet as it transits the face of the star. A planet may also collide with its host star. In such cases the atmosphere of the star will be enriched with metals. In other cases, a planet is tidally disrupted by SgrA*, leading to a bright flare. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1446 Complete document available at (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1446v3.pdf)

I think someone was asking for just one example of science aligning with theology. While I concur science may not generally admit to such, that this and many other examples may be referrencing similar possibilites should a least be a willing concession of potential even if one did not want to embrace it entirely.

[1] Sagittarius A* (pronounced "Sagittarius A-star", standard abbreviation Sgr A*) is a bright and very compact astronomical radio source at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, near the border of the constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. It is part of a larger astronomical feature known as Sagittarius A. Sagittarius A* is believed to be the location of a supermassive black hole, such as are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral and elliptical galaxies. Observations of the star S2 in orbit around Sagittarius A* have been used to show the presence of, and produce data about, the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole, and have led to the conclusion that Sagittarius A* is the site of that black hole. (http://en.wikipedia..../Sagittarius_A*)

Edited July 16, 2012 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

Just lost a long post with a mis-click- but Sam we are in agreement.

It's not that language is inadequate- that almost becomes irrelevant because it is all we have. We just need to understand that when we say "stone" a stone does not come out of our mouths- we just need to know that the word "stone" is not an experienceable piece of rock. It is a symbol- a sign- a conceptual place holder for our experience of a stone- but we still don't know if that is a big stone, a small stone, a blue stone, a red stone etc.

Language cannot convey the difference between the sound of a violin and the sound of a trumpet to someone who has not experienced both sounds. All of these experiences start out as private, subjective experiences when we are children.

Does anyone remember "learning your colors"? We with kids know how you have different colored teething rings on a post and the child picks one up and we teach them the name for that experience, at least that is how it is often done here in the US.

They know the difference - they have had the experience of "red" as opposed to "orange" but have not yet learned the cultural representation (word) for that experience. They are unable to share their experiences because they do not yet know language.

Language is the pool of shared experience, but it is really only metaphors. But yes of course if we do not have shared experiences which underlie what we are trying to express, no communication is possible.

That is of course especially true in the case of spiritual experiences- if you have never had one, you will never be able to understand someone who has.

[SamIam]

Just lost a long post with a mis-click- but Sam we are in agreement.

It's not that language is inadequate- that almost becomes irrelevant because it is all we have. We just need to understand that when we say "stone" a stone does not come out of our mouths- we just need to know that the word "stone" is not an experienceable piece of rock. It is a symbol- a sign- a conceptual place holder for our experience of a stone- but we still don't know if that is a big stone, a small stone, a blue stone, a red stone etc.

Language cannot convey the difference between the sound of a violin and the sound of a trumpet to someone who has not experienced both sounds. All of these experiences start out as private, subjective experiences when we are children.

Does anyone remember "learning your colors"? We with kids know how you have different colored teething rings on a post and the child picks one up and we teach them the name for that experience, at least that is how it is often done here in the US.

They know the difference - they have had the experience of "red" as opposed to "orange" but have not yet learned the cultural representation (word) for that experience. They are unable to share their experiences because they do not yet know language.

Language is the pool of shared experience, but it is really only metaphors. But yes of course if we do not have shared experiences which underlie what we are trying to express, no communication is possible.

That is of course especially true in the case of spiritual experiences- if you have never had one, you will never be able to understand someone who has.

Since they reordered this site a few weeks back I have had my share of lost posts from "mis-clicks" some as a result of the added security and some cause I'm clicking impaired...Frustrating either way.

I guess my point is that while we can acknowledge the limitations of language, I'm not willing to concede that it is all that we have. For that reason I feel a great excitment of realizing that we can learn to be one with God, our spouse, each other in the circle, and all of creation by working and striving with eagerness to grasp the art of spirit enhanced communication. Then the binding of our hearts knit in unity will make all things one in Christ.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SamIam

[Hamilton Porter]

So much for watching Kerry Shirts's apologetic videos.

[MAsh]

Kerry: What you forgot is that one cannot mix religion with real science that has evidence.

Religion can have evidence too. Obviously not on a testible empirical level that we find in many areas of science, but there is still evidence (just as there is evidence in the soft sciences which also cannot be tested in ways we can make tests in the hard sciences).

Kerry: Faith muddled me with subjective feelings that anyone can make for themselves with brain chemistry.

A number of evidences are subjective, not just "feelings." And why couldn't God use brain chemistry to create spiritual "feelings"? He has to use the body in some fashion to speak to the "mind."

Kerry: Science sorts out the muddle puddle with solid intelligence.

Not always. At least not right now. There are lots of muddle puddles for which science is still grasping at straws. I'm convinced that science is part of God's intelligence, plan, and the force that drives Him and the universe. As the saying goes, religion tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go (science does that part).

Kerry: Science never cribs from faith...

Why should it?

Kerry: but faith always needs some support since by itself it is virtually powerless.

I think I disagree but perhaps I don't follow your argument here.

[mfbukowski]

Since they reordered this site a few weeks back I have had my share of lost posts from "mis-clicks" some as a result of the added security and some cause I'm clicking impaired...Frustrating either way.

I guess my point is that while we can acknowledge the limitations of language, I'm not willing to concede that it is all that we have. For that reason I feel a great excitment of realizing that we can learn to be one with God, our spouse, each other in the circle, and all of creation by working and striving with eagerness to grasp the art of spirit enhanced communication. Then the binding of our hearts knit in unity will make all things one in Christ.

I am wondering why you don't understand that I agree with you.

I thought I made it clear that "spirit to spirit" communication is not only possible, but it is the highest form of communication possible. Oh well, if I didn't I guess the problem was my limitation in expressing the point in language.

But as long as ya unnastan' wha I'm sayin', I guess we're ok.

[mfbukowski]

Kerry: What you forgot is that one cannot mix religion with real science that has evidence.

Religion can have evidence too. Obviously not on a testible empirical level that we find in many areas of science, but there is still evidence (just as there is evidence in the soft sciences which also cannot be tested in ways we can make tests in the hard sciences).

Kerry: Faith muddled me with subjective feelings that anyone can make for themselves with brain chemistry.

A number of evidences are subjective, not just "feelings." And why couldn't God use brain chemistry to create spiritual "feelings"? He has to use the body in some fashion to speak to the "mind."

If you are looking for a good philosophical source to establish this point, the article referenced in my siggy, by Thomas Nagel, establishes it well.

In my opinion, the best way to explain how many of the most important decisions in life are not based on "evidence" is to discuss moral principles. Moral principles are not based on scientific "evidence" yet even atheists of course understand that murder is wrong and that we should not lie cheat or steal.

Even atheists have consciences.

Note to sarcasm impaired: the above last line was sarcasm.

Edited July 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

I am wondering why you don't understand that I agree with you.

I thought I made it clear that "spirit to spirit" communication is not only possible, but it is the highest form of communication possible. Oh well, if I didn't I guess the problem was my limitation in expressing the point in language.

But as long as ya unnastan' wha I'm sayin', I guess we're ok.

Perhaps we are conducting an object lesson in this very exchange...I realize that we do agree and it is ever so small a degree of where the emphasis lays upon what I believe is your point of "let it be" it is the nature of language to not completely understand and the ever so subtle significance of a point as I hope will will be understood as my point of emphasis which is that there is one more step of really focusing on the spiritual forms of communication. I be unnastan okay , just splitten a few frog hairs...

[mfbukowski]

I be unnastan okay , just splitten a few frog hairs...

I think that last word is spelled "hayers". It IS two syllables after all.

[SamIam]

I think that last word is spelled "hayers". It IS two syllables after all.

I's got Appalation roots an all - yu'd dink I'd do oakie bettern dat.