The First Law Of Thermodynamics

[wenglund]

This will simply denegrate into my authorities are better than yours though. I can easily find as many authors who say the contrary to these gentlemen.

Are you telling me that there isn't a concensus, no objective position in this area of science? My, my....how are the worshipers of scientism going to handle the subjectivity--the very thing that renders them appoplectic about religion? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

Very true. Have you ever seen the Nazi propaganda film Das Erbe? We were shown it and other Nazi euthanasia films in high school. Chilling.

Yes, and Hitler learned it all from vast American programs of eugenics and sterilization. We had the best of intentions, but how wrong we were!!

[Robert F. Smith]

This dichotomy also ignores the very real contribution missionary movements have made to the spread of modern medicine. As an example, for over half a century, one of the few modern hospitals in Israel/Palestine was the one run by Scottish missionaries in Tiberias. Tens of thousands owe their lives to the faith of the Torrances, and the number increases significantly if one takes other mission hospitals into consideration.

Absolutely. Hadassah hospital is considered one of the best in the world -- a Jewish hospital. During the colonial period, the French made great strides in medicine in Africa -- too many Frenchmen were dying there, not to mention the locals. One thinks also of the great physician/ musician / religious scholar Albert Schweitzer dedicating his life to the people of Africa (see A Light in Lambarene).

Edited July 22, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[spartacus]

Reform Mormonism was brought up in another thread. R.M. is not a movement which I am familiar with but I did a google search that brought up their Gospel Doctrine blog. Within the blog there is a hypothetical conversation between a Reform Mormon and a Christian. I thought it interesting as it then applied the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don't claim to be a physicist or any expertise in sciences. I barely got through them with the B's I fought kicking and screaming for so be patient with me if/when anyone chooses to respond.

This is the hypothetical conversation:

Am I off base for recognizing the, albeit strong and appropriate, logic as presented in this case?

What is the LDS response to the First Law of Thermodynamics?

No you are not off base to recognize the logic represented by the "RM" in response to the "Christian". However, you would be off base if you consider this an accurate depiction of a line of reasoning that is actually given by informed Christians - or any person informed in this area.

The problem with your hypothetical is that nowhere in the original hypothetical does it allude to Big Bang nor suggests anything of the sort. So I will agree with you...your hypothetical is a strawman.

The original hypothetical is, in fact, a strawman. The reason the logic looks so impressive is because the "Christian" is given the straw man view that "everything has a beginning". I don't know of any person educated in logic or apologetics that makes this claim. I can see an average joe make such a statement, but not anyone informed in this area.

Also, to your claim "nowhere in the original hypothetical does it allude to Big Bang nor suggests anything of the sort". I don't know why you take this stance. Sure, the words "Big Bang" aren't in the text, but you speak of no allusion nor suggestion. Such a strong (and by the evidence below, inaccurate) contention makes it appear as if you are trying to force the straw man.

CHRISTIAN: Do you believe that God created the universe?

[Generally, when Christians speak of "God creating the universe" they are speaking of it as ex nihilo, and so it is implied here by the fact that it is a "Christian" speaking that s/he has the beginning of the Universe from nothing in mind. In the scientific arena, this is referred to as the "Big Bang." I think this qualifies as an allusion, certainly a suggestion.]

REFORM MORMON: No.

CHRISTIAN: Who do you think created it then?

[see first note above]

REFORM MORMON: No one created it. The elements from which all things are organized are eternal; they have no beginning or end.

[This is a sufficient description of the steady state theory, which was in opposition to the "Big Bang" theory's eventual acceptance]

CHRISTIAN: But everything has a beginning.

[This is the weakness, or straw, upon which the logic turns and gets too easily to victory for the "RM", this is a straw man. It does not represent the Creator-theist's position at all, let alone their best argument, thus, it is, by definition, a straw man fallacy]

Mudcat recognized the straw man fallacy and attempted a more accurate depiction of such a hypothetical discussion. I suppose Mudcat did not make this explicit so Valentinus may have misunderstood him as recounting the same interaction in different terms, and thus calling foul on the change-up. I hope this is the case, otherwise, again, it would seem that Valentinus was trying to preserve the original hypothetical and thus its straw man.

Incidentally, Valentinus, I don't see how your quip at Mudcat, that "the problem with your hypothetical is that nowhere in the original hypothetical does it allude to Big Bang nor suggests anything of the sort. So I will agree with you...your hypothetical is a strawman," actually represents the necessary elements of a straw man fallacy. This makes me wonder even more whether you are intentionally forcing a straw man version of the Creator-theist's position.

[WalkerW]

This will simply denegrate into my authorities are better than yours though.

Only if that is your tactic, which it hasn't been in the past. I simply provided material assuming you'd be interested in reading it. Peter Harrison in particular gave the 2011 Gifford Lectures on this very subject. I created a thread here for it after watching. The problem is that "science" and "religion" hadn't even been defined in the modern sense when many supposed conflicts between the two took place.

I can easily find as many authors who say the contrary to these gentlemen

That would be irrelevant.

...as Stenger so perfectly noted, is that it is stuck in medieval thinking...

I personally like Dawkins' dig at the God of the Old Testament much more than the Stenger quote you provided.

The overall problem with religion is simply this: it and its practitioners "still cling to medieval religious concepts." (Ibid., p. 78)

Many of medieval concepts are related to natural philosophy, which evolved into what we know as science. I haven't read Stenger's book, but the quote you provided is downright sloppy. In fact, it is the same "Dark Ages" nonsense that fills the pages of Talmage's The Great Apostasy. The "Dark Ages" is no longer considered historically accurate.

[WalkerW]

This dichotomy also ignores the very real contribution missionary movements have made to the spread of modern medicine. As an example, for over half a century, one of the few modern hospitals in Israel/Palestine was the one run by Scottish missionaries in Tiberias. Tens of thousands owe their lives to the faith of the Torrances, and the number increases significantly if one takes other mission hospitals into consideration.

David Bentley Hart covers the Christian hospitals established in the Middle Ages in his Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009).

[volgadon]

I haven't read Stenger's book, but the quote you provided is downright sloppy.

So far, I haven't been impressed. The book is as sloppy as the quotes.

[volgadon]

David Bentley Hart covers the Christian hospitals established in the Middle Ages in his Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009).

I don't know why I haven't read it earlier.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Hang on there, pardner!

Stenger has an article out which summarizes his POV: See his “The Folly of Faith,” Huff Post Religion, May 17, 2011, online at http://www.huffingto...h_b_863179.html . The thing to focus on is his rejection of supernaturalism and the like. His case doesn't touch Mormonism, which is naturalistic.

Moreover, the existence of a "fine-tuned universe" and "Goldilocks planets," makes intelligent design by a very advanced sentient being or beings quite likely. See Michael Sudduth, “The Universe, Design, and Fine Tuning,” handout #11 (2003), online at http://philofreligio...ulativecase.htm , and Michael Ikeda and William H. Jeffreys, “The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism” (April 2006), online at http://quasar.as.ute.../anthropic.html .

Finally, note Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (HarperOne, 2008). “At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England” (interview by Richard Ostling, AP, Dec 9, 2004).

Mormonism is not only compatible with science, but it thrives on it.

.

But, can't we simply say as you have said of Stenger, that these gents are just having confirmation bias themselves? Stenger has written an entire book on the fine tune consonants and finds them not to be a valid argument about God and our life here in this universe. And there is no good argument for a first cause anymore since scientists are showing more and more that the universe is eternal and never had a beginning or end, so it is hard to fathom Flew actually thinking now that there is a first cause. Perhaps he is going senile for all we know?

See, I suspect you are too quick jumping to the conclusion that Mormonism thrives on science by simply quoting a few scientists who agree with something we interpret in Mormonism that is favorable. But this is simply picking and choosing allies for our own cause, i.e. confirmation bias isn't it? I can find easily as many more scientists who refute these gents, so why aren't we using them also? This is what I am finding all religions and folks in religion doing.....picking and choosing which parts of the scriptures to use, ignoring the overall context, messages, and implications. We do the same things with authorities when it suits our purposes, and ignore all who disagree, and then turn around and say this proves something about Mormonism. It is a faulty methodology is it not?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Absolutely. Hadassah hospital is considered one of the best in the world -- a Jewish hospital. During the colonial period, the French made great strides in medicine in Africa -- too many Frenchmen were dying there, not to mention the locals. One thinks also of the great physician/ musician / religious scholar Albert Schweitzer dedicating his life to the people of Africa (see A Light in Lambarene).

Thank God for the science of medicine eh?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

This dichotomy also ignores the very real contribution missionary movements have made to the spread of modern medicine. As an example, for over half a century, one of the few modern hospitals in Israel/Palestine was the one run by Scottish missionaries in Tiberias. Tens of thousands owe their lives to the faith of the Torrances, and the number increases significantly if one takes other mission hospitals into consideration.

You miss the point of course. It is scientific medicine the religions are spreading, not prayers of faith. Science is being used when medicine is used, not religion. Religion says pray in faith and believe and you will be healed. Science has experimented, tested, found, and chemically combined various substances in order to come up with medicines that work through testing. THIS is what is being spread by the missionaries, pure science.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I think it is ironic that a medical example is used. While religious conservatives are generally those opposing the science behind things like evolution, it is generally secular leftists leading the anti-vaccine movements. Stupidity is stupidity, whether informed by creationist dogma or hippie nonsense.

The real irony is, of course, faith FAILED. Science medicine actually could have helped, but faith was relied on, and it failed, resulting in the death of their daughter.

[volgadon]

This is what I am finding all religions and folks in religion doing.....picking and choosing which parts of the scriptures to use, ignoring the overall context, messages, and implications. We do the same things with authorities when it suits our purposes, and ignore all who disagree, and then turn around and say this proves something about Mormonism. It is a faulty methodology is it not?

Then I fail to see why you recommend Stenger's book, it suffers from the same shortcomings.

[volgadon]

The real irony is, of course, faith FAILED. Science medicine actually could have helped, but faith was relied on, and it failed, resulting in the death of their daughter.

You failed to answer my question. Have faith healings ALWAYS failed and modern medicine ALWAYS succeeded?

What would have happened had the girl gone to the hospital, but died anyway? Would it have made headlines?

Edited July 22, 2012 by volgadon

[WalkerW]

But, can't we simply say as you have said of Stenger, that these gents are just having confirmation bias themselves? Stenger has written an entire book on the fine tune consonants and finds them not to be a valid argument about God and our life here in this universe. And there is no good argument for a first cause anymore since scientists are showing more and more that the universe is eternal and never had a beginning or end, so it is hard to fathom Flew actually thinking now that there is a first cause. Perhaps he is going senile for all we know?

Mormonism agrees with the eternal nature of the universe (or elements) and tends to reject the abstract God conflated with the First Cause. However, the universe being eternal does not indicate that there is no First Cause. All it indicates is the one making the argument does not understand the Thomist-Aristotelian meaning of "first cause." I mentioned earlier that Aquinas believed a first cause was necessary even if the universe was eternal.

Eastern Orthodox philosopher David B. Hart provides a brief summary of this distinction in a well-written First Things article. What is strange is that I remember you posting this article on your Facebook page when it first came out:

The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.

This isn't simply an uncaused cause that gets all other causes going. It is a cause that continually sustains all other causes in the here and now. It is, quite literally, Being or Existence Itself. This is the medieval Christian view of God. From a Mormon perspective, this seems to fit the notion of "intelligence, or the light of truth."

[WalkerW]

The real irony is, of course, faith FAILED. Science medicine actually could have helped, but faith was relied on, and it failed, resulting in the death of their daughter.

My point was that rejecting medicine is not confined to religion.

How are we defining science, religion, and faith? Taking your posts as a whole, your definitions seem to be as follows:

science - any and everything that works

religion - everything that does not work

faith - belief in religion

I'm going to borrow from a blog post of mine to address this:

The narrow confinement of the word science to the biological or physical realms is a relatively recent English development that began in the late-1800s.[1] Yet, in Dutch today we can still speak of kunstwetenschap (“art science”): an unthinkable English combination. Or in German die Geisteswissenschaften (literally “spirit sciences”). Before the mid-19th century, science could be equated with or encompassed by natural philosophy. Science was, in the words of Nobel laureate Percy W. Bridgman, “nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred.”

...As the physicist and philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn explained,

The more carefully [historians of science] study, say, Aristotelian dynamics, phlogistic chemistry, or caloric thermodynamics, the more certain they feel that those once current views of nature were, as a whole, neither less scientific nor more the product of human idiosyncrasy than those current today. If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge. If, on the other hand, they are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today. Given these alternatives, the historian must choose the latter. Out-of-date theories are not in principle unscientific because they have been discarded. That choice, however, makes it difficult to see scientific development as a process of accretion.[7]

...Having already provided a brief etymological history of the word science, I will provide the same for four more: religion, faith, agency and freedom.

Religion in our day is commonly understood as a set of supernatural propositions or an institution/denomination one belongs to. However, when we explore the meaning of religion in medieval Christianity, a different picture emerges. St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Western philosopher of the Middle Ages, understood religion (Latin religio) as a moral virtue. In his Summa Theologiae, he explained that the primary acts of religion are internal, while the secondary ones are external. Internal religious acts are identified as devotion and prayer, while external acts include reverence, offerings, sacrifices, etc. Religion was not objectified as an institute of beliefs and practices related to the supernatural until the Protestant Reformation, particularly John Calvin.[9]

While religioncame to mean the institute of particular beliefs and practices, faith came to be associated with the intellectual assent to the beliefs themselves.[10] However, this is a distorted view of the original usage. Placing the term within the context of the Greco-Roman world, New Testament scholar David DeSilva explains,

Faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations...In one sense, faith meant “dependability.” The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to “keep faith” as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is “trust”: the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron...while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response.[11]

In his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews, DeSilva touches on Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen":

In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the “substance” or “underlying essence” of something...The same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of “title deed” or “guarantee,” attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians’ loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron’s promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her..."trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having “trust” is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing “distrust” toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as “distrust” manifested itself in “disobedience,” which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land; 3:7-19).[12]

Instead of the childish wish fulfillment and blind obedience many critics purport it to be, faith is a mature sense of trust, commitment, and engagement.

1. See the Introduction of Daniel Patrick Thurs, Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture (Rutgers University Press, 2007).

7. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1996 [1962]), 2-3.

9. Peter Harrison, "

," 2011 Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, 14 Feb. 2011.

10. For a helpful overview of the word's history, see Karen Armstrong, The Case for God (Alfred A. Knopf, 2009), Ch. 4 - "Faith."

11. David A. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (InterVarsity Press, 2000), 115.

12. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Eerdmans, 2000), 383-384.

[mfbukowski]

Hang on there, pardner!

Stenger has an article out which summarizes his POV: See his “The Folly of Faith,” Huff Post Religion, May 17, 2011, online at http://www.huffingto...h_b_863179.html . The thing to focus on is his rejection of supernaturalism and the like. His case doesn't touch Mormonism, which is naturalistic.

Moreover, the existence of a "fine-tuned universe" and "Goldilocks planets," makes intelligent design by a very advanced sentient being or beings quite likely. See Michael Sudduth, “The Universe, Design, and Fine Tuning,” handout #11 (2003), online at http://philofreligio...ulativecase.htm , and Michael Ikeda and William H. Jeffreys, “The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism” (April 2006), online at http://quasar.as.ute.../anthropic.html .

Finally, note Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (HarperOne, 2008). “At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A superintelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England” (interview by Richard Ostling, AP, Dec 9, 2004).

Mormonism is not only compatible with science, but it thrives on it.

.

I have to agree. Not only are we naturalistic, but we are also arguably materialists, believing that spirit itself is a kind of matter.

Nearly all atheistic arguments I have seen do not apply to Mormonism, but are designed to argue against an transcendent God without body parts or passions as the saying goes.

I must admit I have not yet read the book, but if this quote is representative, it appears that Stenger really doesn't understand the philosophy of science, which is shocking if he supposedly also works in the philosophy department.

This from your link above in the Huffington Post:

By contrast, science is not based on faith but on objective observations of the world....

All religions, even Buddhism, teach that a reality exists that goes beyond -- transcends -- the material world that presents itself to our senses and scientific instruments. Many believers and nonbelievers alike claim that science has nothing to say about the supernatural. But they fail to acknowledge that if the supernatural exists and has effects on the material world, then those effects should be observable and subject to scientific study.

While science is willing to consider any evidence that comes along, so far none has appeared that requires any immaterial entity be added to the models that already describe our observations of the world around us with great precision.

The statements that science studies "reality", or the "material world" or "the world around us" seem shockingly unaware of even the most elementary understanding of philosophical epistemology, and in fact there is nothing in this essay to even suggest that Stenger has any understanding whatsoever of the philosophy of science.

The description of observing "world around us" or that the "material world presents itself to our senses and scientific instruments" is just shockingly naive and grates on my ears like fingernails on a chalk board.

Even in an Epistemology 101 class, one would learn about bridging the gap between what is in the "world" as opposed to our observations of it- and how we can know that our observations actually correspond correctly to a world which somehow is thought to exist independently of our observations.

The problem is a very elementary one known to anyone who has studied epistemology- if our perceptions of the world correspond to the world, how can we get outside of our perceptions to examine the world itself? Suppose our perceptions of the world are like wearing rose colored glasses, how can we see anything "real" independent of that rose colored tint to see what the world is "really" like? This is THE problem of epistemology.

A good example is astronomy where what we see is not the "world as it is" but the LIGHT from a world as it was, perhaps thousands of years ago. How can we see a star as it is NOW?

We cannot. And astronomy is not a special case, the problem is just clearer there. In fact what science records has nothing to do with the world as it IS, but just the world as we see it and experience it.

But then there is another problem. Even if it were possible to get beyond our perceptions of the world, the only way we can express our observations is symbolically, through language.

So statements about the world do not reflect what the world is, but our perceptions of it, and those once removed as well- expressed in language, removing us even farther from the world "as it is" if such a thing is even knowable. These are elementary problems every philosopher of science must address, and it appears at least here, Stenger ignores these issues. I hope he does not in the book.

Largely this essay is an unbalanced harangue against religion that seems pretty unreasoned.

I hope there is more to the book, because this was hardly worth reading. It is just your standard atheist harangue.

Edited July 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Mormonism agrees with the eternal nature of the universe (or elements) and tends to reject the abstract God conflated with the First Cause. However, the universe being eternal does not indicate that there is no First Cause. All it indicates is the one making the argument does not understand the Thomist-Aristotelian meaning of "first cause." I mentioned earlier that Aquinas believed a first cause was necessary even if the universe was eternal.

Eastern Orthodox philosopher David B. Hart provides a brief summary of this distinction in a well-written First Things article. What is strange is that I remember you posting this article on your Facebook page when it first came out:

The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.

This isn't simply an uncaused cause that gets all other causes going. It is a cause that continually sustains all other causes in the here and now. It is, quite literally, Being or Existence Itself. This is the medieval Christian view of God. From a Mormon perspective, this seems to fit the notion of "intelligence, or the light of truth."

Good to see you! I always enjoy reading your posts and marvel at how well documented and researched they are.

My only comment is that Mormons really don't need Neoplatonic sectarian philosophy that somehow survived the Restoration and some try to jam into the Mormon paradigm like jamming a square into a circle.

It all just doesn't work that well for us, in my opinion. We don't need it- the gospel has been restored. It's like putting a Model T engine into a Maserati. Why would anyone want to do that?

[Robert F. Smith]

You miss the point of course. It is scientific medicine the religions are spreading, not prayers of faith. Science is being used when medicine is used, not religion. Religion says pray in faith and believe and you will be healed. Science has experimented, tested, found, and chemically combined various substances in order to come up with medicines that work through testing. THIS is what is being spread by the missionaries, pure science.

Nonsense. Are you inveighing here against Christian Science? Got the wrong Board, Kerry. Mormonism, like most religions recommends the use of both faith and science in healing. Why would you deliberately ignore what you already know?

[Robert F. Smith]

But, can't we simply say as you have said of Stenger, that these gents are just having confirmation bias themselves? Stenger has written an entire book on the fine tune consonants and finds them not to be a valid argument about God and our life here in this universe. And there is no good argument for a first cause anymore since scientists are showing more and more that the universe is eternal and never had a beginning or end, so it is hard to fathom Flew actually thinking now that there is a first cause. Perhaps he is going senile for all we know?

See, I suspect you are too quick jumping to the conclusion that Mormonism thrives on science by simply quoting a few scientists who agree with something we interpret in Mormonism that is favorable. But this is simply picking and choosing allies for our own cause, i.e. confirmation bias isn't it? I can find easily as many more scientists who refute these gents, so why aren't we using them also? This is what I am finding all religions and folks in religion doing.....picking and choosing which parts of the scriptures to use, ignoring the overall context, messages, and implications. We do the same things with authorities when it suits our purposes, and ignore all who disagree, and then turn around and say this proves something about Mormonism. It is a faulty methodology is it not?

I had at one time been under the (obviously mistaken) impression that you actually knew something about Mormonism. So that when Stenger attacks supernaturalism, you would immediately understand who and what he was attacking. Unfortunately you do not understand the difference between nature and supernature, and that Mormonism rejects the latter. At nearly every point in his diatribe, Stenger, who is purposely directing his arguments against the normative Judeo-Christian tradition, attacks beliefs which Mormons don't have. Like a fighter trying to punch the young Cassius Clay, he can't touch the guy who floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee, just as Mormonism remains essentially untouched by Stenger. Well, he was directing his bitter attack against someone else -- even though you seem not to get it.

By folding all religions into one indistinguishable mass you are making hash of the distinctive character of Mormonism. The evangelicals in fact would be amazed that you don't understand why. This isn't special pleading or confirmation bias. Even our enemies seem to understand Mormonism better than you do. . .

Edited July 23, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

Largely this essay is an unbalanced harangue against religion that seems pretty unreasoned.

I hope there is more to the book, because this was hardly worth reading. It is just your standard atheist harangue.

I'll let you know if I find anything more to it.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I had at one time been under the (obviously mistaken) impression that you actually knew something about Mormonism. So that when Stenger attacks supernaturalism, you would immediately understand who and what he was attacking. Unfortunately you do not understand the difference between nature and supernature, and that Mormonism rejects the latter. At nearly every point in his diatribe, Stenger, who is purposely directing his arguments against the normative Judeo-Christian tradition, attacks beliefs which Mormons don't have. Like a fighter trying to punch the young Cassius Clay, he can't touch the guy who floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee, just as Mormonism remains essentially untouched by Stenger. Well, he was directing his bitter attack against someone else -- even though you seem not to get it.

By folding all religions into one indistinguishable mass you are making hash of the distinctive character of Mormonism. The evangelicals in fact would be amazed that you don't understand why. This isn't special pleading or confirmation bias. Even our enemies seem to understand Mormonism better than you do. I hope that this is not a sign of early . . . well, you know . . .

Mormonism is based on the belief that there is a God, that interacts with the world, has created the universe, who is in time and space. lived a mortal life, sent his son to earth to live a mortal life, the son dying and resurrecting and promising eternal life for all who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, right? This is the plan. Mormonism is PURELY based on the Judeo-Hebrew-Christian religion, even claiming it IS the actual original CHRISTIAN (Jewish really) church that Jesus, none other actually founded, yes? If that holds that it is a Judeo-Christian restoration, then the Judeo-Christian backbone must hold for Mormonism to even have a chance, right? And what is the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion? The Bible and a living God who has physical form, within our material world.

Science has shown all of this to be mistaken. What originality of Mormonism is so far away form the Christian roots that the scientists cannot touch Mormonism? I am honestly just asking. I may not know Mormonism as you propose, but you certainly do not appear to me to understand what science has dismantled in the Judeo-Christian world of religious thinking.

For instance, is it fair of me to ask do we Mormons really believe that God is eternal? Just what kind of God do we propose after all that is so vastly different than Christianity? Is God totally good? Can he be God if he is not? Is God honestly in possession of all knowledge as all the prophets actually have taught? Is God truly in possession of all power in heaven and earth as the scriptures teach? All of these questions most certainly effect our Mormonism do they not? The foundational basis and background of God is in the Mormon acceptance of the ancient Jewish and Christian scriptures the Bible. If it stands, then we are in the clear. If it falls, then the foundation is gone and what honestly does Mormonism have left? The Pearl of Great Price is pure Bible, read it and see. It adopts the Bible version of creation, as a revelation of God to Joseph Smith in the 1830's, and it has all the outmoded thinking the Bible has. Can we truly think this is supposed to be objective truth when we know it is not? Does God even know about the Cosmos? Apparently not if we agree with the PofGP. The D&C is all about the Bible questions and ideals of the Bible being reified within Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is so biblical as to honestly not need much explanation on that score. If the Bible and God in the Bible passes muster, then we can be cleared, until then, I may not know much about Mormonism, but I know enough to know that it is solidly built upon the Bible and God as depicted in the Bible. That is the proper place to go to see how alike Mormonism is with Christianity. Our philosophy is not all that much different than Christians except in minor details. And the philosophical refutations of the foundations of what God is and what he can do and know apply to Mormons just as surely as they apply to Christians. If not how not? Are we as Mormons going to say well God really doesn't know everything after all, hee, hee.....our bad. God is only really way smart. Are we as Mormons going to agree that God actually does not possess all power, or that he has just enough power to be powerful enough to overcome everything he needs to to ensure things go all right for the universe? Are we Mormons going to say God really is the epitome and fullness of love, kindness, and joy, or is that relative to something else as all his other attributes are? Just what are we going to say about God in Mormonism then? I know what I have been taught, and what I have been reading. I just don't know anymore that it makes any sense anymore.

Is it any surprise that so many Mormons can't stand Blake Ostler's analysis of God precisely because he has shown the problematic nature of even trying to understand the subject of God? True we want to keep it simple and easy to understand, but that's a pipedream. The moment you simplify it to kindergarten thinking philosophy destroys the assumptions of simplification whether Christian or Mormon. Just what attributes can we legitimately give to God and do they agree or disagree with scripture? Nothing about God in Mormonism matches any scientific analysis of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, astronomy, etc. In fact, what physical evidence has God left since Mormonism has arisen that science can explore and found verifiable? Science works with the physical for very obvious reasons, the moment you allow for supernatural, then anything can be claimed even quakers on the moon. So we stay with the natural material world in science to learn knowledge and fact and truth. Gravity is not caused by a good angel in the middle of the earth. Demons are no longer needed to exorcise these days, because we have actually learned they are not what is behind various diseases and disorders in life. etc.

[WalkerW]

Good to see you! I always enjoy reading your posts and marvel at how well documented and researched they are.

My only comment is that Mormons really don't need Neoplatonic sectarian philosophy that somehow survived the Restoration and some try to jam into the Mormon paradigm like jamming a square into a circle.

It all just doesn't work that well for us, in my opinion. We don't need it- the gospel has been restored. It's like putting a Model T engine into a Maserati. Why would anyone want to do that?

We don't need to adopt it necessarily. But I find Aristotelian methods much more compatible than the earlier Neoplatonic ones.

[mfbukowski]

Mormonism is based on the belief that there is a God, that interacts with the world, has created the universe, who is in time and space. lived a mortal life, sent his son to earth to live a mortal life, the son dying and resurrecting and promising eternal life for all who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, right? This is the plan. Mormonism is PURELY based on the Judeo-Hebrew-Christian religion, even claiming it IS the actual original CHRISTIAN (Jewish really) church that Jesus, none other actually founded, yes? If that holds that it is a Judeo-Christian restoration, then the Judeo-Christian backbone must hold for Mormonism to even have a chance, right? And what is the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion? The Bible and a living God who has physical form, within our material world.

Science has shown all of this to be mistaken. What originality of Mormonism is so far away form the Christian roots that the scientists cannot touch Mormonism? I am honestly just asking. I may not know Mormonism as you propose, but you certainly do not appear to me to understand what science has dismantled in the Judeo-Christian world of religious thinking.

For instance, is it fair of me to ask do we Mormons really believe that God is eternal? Just what kind of God do we propose after all that is so vastly different than Christianity? Is God totally good? Can he be God if he is not? Is God honestly in possession of all knowledge as all the prophets actually have taught? Is God truly in possession of all power in heaven and earth as the scriptures teach? All of these questions most certainly effect our Mormonism do they not? The foundational basis and background of God is in the Mormon acceptance of the ancient Jewish and Christian scriptures the Bible. If it stands, then we are in the clear. If it falls, then the foundation is gone and what honestly does Mormonism have left? The Pearl of Great Price is pure Bible, read it and see. It adopts the Bible version of creation, as a revelation of God to Joseph Smith in the 1830's, and it has all the outmoded thinking the Bible has. Can we truly think this is supposed to be objective truth when we know it is not? Does God even know about the Cosmos? Apparently not if we agree with the PofGP. The D&C is all about the Bible questions and ideals of the Bible being reified within Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is so biblical as to honestly not need much explanation on that score. If the Bible and God in the Bible passes muster, then we can be cleared, until then, I may not know much about Mormonism, but I know enough to know that it is solidly built upon the Bible and God as depicted in the Bible. That is the proper place to go to see how alike Mormonism is with Christianity. Our philosophy is not all that much different than Christians except in minor details. And the philosophical refutations of the foundations of what God is and what he can do and know apply to Mormons just as surely as they apply to Christians. If not how not? Are we as Mormons going to say well God really doesn't know everything after all, hee, hee.....our bad. God is only really way smart. Are we as Mormons going to agree that God actually does not possess all power, or that he has just enough power to be powerful enough to overcome everything he needs to to ensure things go all right for the universe? Are we Mormons going to say God really is the epitome and fullness of love, kindness, and joy, or is that relative to something else as all his other attributes are? Just what are we going to say about God in Mormonism then? I know what I have been taught, and what I have been reading. I just don't know anymore that it makes any sense anymore.

Is it any surprise that so many Mormons can't stand Blake Ostler's analysis of God precisely because he has shown the problematic nature of even trying to understand the subject of God? True we want to keep it simple and easy to understand, but that's a pipedream. The moment you simplify it to kindergarten thinking philosophy destroys the assumptions of simplification whether Christian or Mormon. Just what attributes can we legitimately give to God and do they agree or disagree with scripture? Nothing about God in Mormonism matches any scientific analysis of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, astronomy, etc. In fact, what physical evidence has God left since Mormonism has arisen that science can explore and found verifiable? Science works with the physical for very obvious reasons, the moment you allow for supernatural, then anything can be claimed even quakers on the moon. So we stay with the natural material world in science to learn knowledge and fact and truth. Gravity is not caused by a good angel in the middle of the earth. Demons are no longer needed to exorcise these days, because we have actually learned they are not what is behind various diseases and disorders in life. etc.

Let me put this bluntly. Nothing is "true" in the sense of being in a world beyond our perceptions- all we have are our perceptions and linguistic expressions of them.

Science is as much "poetry" in the sense of symbolic representation of our perceptions as religion is. What we see as reality is a product of our human brains organizing the chaos of perception into "things" so we can never really see "things as they are" we only deal with metaphors and myths.

You seem to not be able to grasp this point or way of seeing, even to discuss whether or not it is a correct model. Your responses are always within your OWN mythical model of reality and you never deal with the possibility that that mythical model in your mind does not reflect the possibility that there are other mythical models which explain it all at least equally as well if not better.

I have been in your model before and I find the one I now accept to explain it all better without the need for the dogma you accept. Try to free your mind and see it differently even if only for a few minutes so you can at least evaluate another point of view.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mormonism agrees with the eternal nature of the universe (or elements) and tends to reject the abstract God conflated with the First Cause. However, the universe being eternal does not indicate that there is no First Cause. All it indicates is the one making the argument does not understand the Thomist-Aristotelian meaning of "first cause." I mentioned earlier that Aquinas believed a first cause was necessary even if the universe was eternal.

Eastern Orthodox philosopher David B. Hart provides a brief summary of this distinction in a well-written First Things article. What is strange is that I remember you posting this article on your Facebook page when it first came out:

The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.

This isn't simply an uncaused cause that gets all other causes going. It is a cause that continually sustains all other causes in the here and now. It is, quite literally, Being or Existence Itself. This is the medieval Christian view of God. From a Mormon perspective, this seems to fit the notion of "intelligence, or the light of truth."

Sounds like the beginning of an infinite regress of causes, which I really do not understand. I'd much rather define two categories: (1) necessary, and (2) contingent. If we are all necessary beings then I can understand how we had no beginning and have no end. It also makes sense to me that we can "create" or manufacture contingency (finite, temporal, planets, galaxies, universes etc.). However, the Judeo-Christian insistence has traditionally been that only God is necessary, is wholly other, is outside the universe and time, that there is a great gulf between Him and us, and that only thus does he possess the requisite sovereignty to merit our worship and obedience. We are wholly contingent on Him and his whims. Thus, logically, if evil exists it is contingent upon Him, thus creating a self-contradiction for an omnibeneficent, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, a contradiction which cannot stand and which must negate the necessary existence of such a "God." Gott ist Tot, said Nietzsche.