Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[zerinus]

. . . and getting rid of old silly superstitions like casting out demons and flying through the air, etc.

Oh, there is nothing superstitious about casting out demons! That in fact is a good example of something that science cannot do. The limitations of science very obvious and real.

[supersnail]

Theodicy has been discussed many times on this message board. I believe there are uniquely Mormon answers to the questions raised in this thread (about suffering and also about science) that would be neglected if the conversation were confined to typical atheist arguments against God and religion in general. It is hard for me to understand why someone claiming familiarity with LDS beliefs would not take care to put their objections in the context of what Latter-day Saints have already said, in various settings, and would portray LDS as if they had never contemplated, or were unable to contemplate, these questions.

Posts in this thread have gone off on tangents many times, and it does seem to reflect one person's difficulties. That is not an ad hominem statement. I would like to discuss the non-overlapping magisteria principle associated with Gould (and Mormon alternatives or elaborations) in more depth if anyone is interested, but it may not be appropriate to do so to the extent that this thread has become just about one person. I am not LDS, and that also complicates matters. Regardless of my own background, LDS and non-LDS should be able discuss topics thoroughly without getting bogged down with one individual's issues and perhaps doing something inadvertently to influence them in an undesirable way.

[Ahab]

Theodicy has been discussed many times on this message board. I believe there are uniquely Mormon answers to the questions raised in this thread (about suffering and also about science) that would be neglected if the conversation were confined to typical atheist arguments against God and religion in general. It is hard for me to understand why someone claiming familiarity with LDS beliefs would not take care to put their objections in the context of what Latter-day Saints have already said, in various settings, and would portray LDS as if they had never contemplated, or were unable to contemplate, these questions.

Posts in this thread have gone off on tangents many times, and it does seem to reflect one person's difficulties. That is not an ad hominem statement. I would like to discuss the non-overlapping magisteria principle associated with Gould (and Mormon alternatives or elaborations) in more depth if anyone is interested, but it may not be appropriate to do so to the extent that this thread has become just about one person. I am not LDS, and that also complicates matters. Regardless of my own background, LDS and non-LDS should be able discuss topics thoroughly without getting bogged down with one individual's issues and perhaps doing something inadvertently to influence them in an undesirable way.

Just throw your questions out there and if you don't get the responses you want just start another thread to get into it more.

I'm sure someone on the board would be willing to discuss what you want to discuss, and even in the way you want to discuss it.

[mfbukowski]

I find this recent debate between Dawkins and Lennox very relevant to this duscussion.

I am just catching up- thanks for the post but I think I was a bit disappointed overall, and I think in the last minute or two of the video, the reason become clear- Lennox mentions that neither is a "post modern relativist" and though I am not really either, I think that is what was missing.

It would have been fruitful to see these questions from a different perspective than the fairly simple Enlightenment perspective presented. The underlying philosophies of both participants are based in the 16th century and a little has happened in philosophy since then. Brilliant guys obviously but to me they did not discuss the most relevant issues at all, though they were hinted at.

Dawkins spoke of each of us coming up with our own "private purpose" without discussing the implications of that for a scientific perspective. It would have been interesting to hear why his "private purpose" includes only one perspective on the questions of science- and how he made the decision to discount other private purposes.

I think overall Dawkins "won" not because he is right but because Lennox was not arguing from as strong a position as he might have. His point about the Logos and all of rationality being linguistically based- seeing even DNA as a "language" was precisely in my opinion where he should have stayed and driven that point home.

Science is a linguistic point of view and religion is also a linguistic point of view but each describe different things and serve different purposes. When we mix those contexts, we get confusion and this debate, to me, just perpetuated the confusion.

Dawkins mentioned the anthropic principle and I think that is the key here.

He said something like:

The fact that we are talking about it determines that we must be in a universe which is amenable to rationality and discourse.

Now if I were Lennox I would have driven a truck through that opening Dawkins gave him- indeed that "proves" that our universe is based on the Logos- which is, to me a metaphorical way of saying exactly what Dawkins was acknowledging, that the universe was essentially created by language itself.

But I think that is where the moderator interrupted and brought it all to a screeching halt just when it was getting interesting.

Also Dawkins objections, if you will note, all applied to a transcendent God who is not concerned with mankind whereas the Mormon God is not like that.

He said that a cosmic God is incompatible with science- but of course our God is immanent and is indeed one of "us"- his separation from us is a matter of perfection but we are the same kind of being.

Anyway, an interesting discussion to be sure, I just wish there was another point of view represented with a different view of "Truth" than the one they both agreed on apparently.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It is also vastly superior to decide what kind of knowledge you are looking for before deciding where to look.

I agree entirely. The best knowledge is that which is evidentially true because evidence justifies it as actual knowledge. This is how we live in this world. This is how reality is come to is through evidence. It is self-evident when you actually think about it. It's objective this way also and controls having just anything pronounced as real to be tested for it's truth content. Otherwise we could simply say anything and say have faith in it, and of what value, honestly, would that be for actual truth or reality? Words alone or pronouncing truth and reality without evidence does not automatically make what is proposed to be true. We know this from our everyday experience. Everyone KNOWS that trees exist and their properties and values to us, because it is an objective reality in our world. It is good knowledge because anyone, pretty much anywhere, has seen them, perhaps touched them, and been under their shade. If not, most have seen pictures of them. They are here, they are real, they are objective. It is that kind of knowledge that is actual knowledge that I am wanting.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ahab noted:

I meant your idea regarding God doesn't prove there is no God.

Kerry:

This is so true. Your ideas about God do not prove he exists either. But, based on what we know about the world, the universe, the laws and how they function in reality of our material world, and the information neuroscientists are learning, we can say that there is no evidence for any of the gods who have ever been postulated throughout history all the way up to today. After all, just because there is no proof that God does not exist does not automatically mean we think Zeus does!

[ERayR]

I agree entirely. The best knowledge is that which is evidentially true because evidence justifies it as actual knowledge. This is how we live in this world. This is how reality is come to is through evidence. It is self-evident when you actually think about it. It's objective this way also and controls having just anything pronounced as real to be tested for it's truth content. Otherwise we could simply say anything and say have faith in it, and of what value, honestly, would that be for actual truth or reality? Words alone or pronouncing truth and reality without evidence does not automatically make what is proposed to be true. We know this from our everyday experience. Everyone KNOWS that trees exist and their properties and values to us, because it is an objective reality in our world. It is good knowledge because anyone, pretty much anywhere, has seen them, perhaps touched them, and been under their shade. If not, most have seen pictures of them. They are here, they are real, they are objective. It is that kind of knowledge that is actual knowledge that I am wanting.

It is also, to me, self evident that a belief in and a reverence for a divine being greater than ourselves is a desirable thing. However, I do not go looking for him in a manual on wiring a house for electricity.

[Ahab]

Ahab noted:

I meant your idea regarding God doesn't prove there is no God.

Kerry:

This is so true. Your ideas about God do not prove he exists either.

You're wrong there, Kerry. Many of my ideas about God are based on what is obvious in reality... things that are real and therefore knowable through all 5 natural senses, and even the 6th sense.

But, based on what we know about the world, the universe, the laws and how they function in reality of our material world, and the information neuroscientists are learning, we can say that there is no evidence for any of the gods who have ever been postulated throughout history all the way up to today.

Talk about an ostrich with his head in the sand mentality. Jesus was (and still is) God and many people saw (and still see) him.

You can try to cover yourself up while saying "I don't believe it" but your unbelief doesn't change the fact that God lives.

After all, just because there is no proof that God does not exist does not automatically mean we think Zeus does!

If Zeus really did exist, someone would be at least "able" to see him, just like many people have actually seen Jesus, and the Father of Jesus (and us or our spirits).

Until you see him you will probably continue to deny him.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Here's something I wish more people would keep in mind before they say something like "there is no God".

The word "God" is generally used to refer to the most supreme being in all of existence, and while some people have been mistaken about which being that is, there is (and must be) a supreme being among all of the beings there are, and whichever one that is, that is the one that is God.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to realize that point, but for some reason many people don't seem to get that.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ahab:

You can try to cover yourself up while saying "I don't believe it" but your unbelief doesn't change the fact that God lives.

Kerry:

No more than your belief means God does exist. Like Bertrand Russell noted when asked what he was going to do when he finally did get to stand before God and how was he going to say he didn't believe in God during his life. His response? "Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence."

[supersnail]

I retract my claim, "You are an atheist," addressed to the author of the OP. I have no knowledge that the individual intended to portray himself as an atheist or thought of himself as a disbeliever. In any case, the claim was unnecessary. Also, I don't know enough about the individual or his writing to know when he is saying things for the sake of argument that he doesn't actually believe.

Edited August 4, 2012 by supersnail

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It is also, to me, self evident that a belief in and a reverence for a divine being greater than ourselves is a desirable thing. However, I do not go looking for him in a manual on wiring a house for electricity.

Why not? Crimany on another thread I was told by many Mormons that God and Christ are testified of in ALL THINGS. When I replied how utterly worthless such a statement was with examples, I took it in the teeth for days and numerous posts. Why based on conclusions to that thread that all things testify of Christ, I'd say memorize that manual man! You will be learning nothing but of Christ in it and every other book, including those which teach there is no Christ.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ahab:

You're wrong there, Kerry. Many of my ideas about God are based on what is obvious in reality... things that are real and therefore knowable through all 5 natural senses, and even the 6th sense.

Kerry:

6th sense? In reality?! Do, pray tell, present the objective evidence accepted by the world that such exists will you? I suspect the world will pretty much agree with the 5 senses, but what objective truths and evidences do you have for a postulated 6th sense is what I am asking.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I retract my claim, "You are an atheist," addressed to the author of the OP. I have no knowledge that the individual intended to portray himself as an atheist or thought of himself as a disbeliever. In any case, the claim was unnecessary. Also, I don't know enough about the individual or his writing to know when he is saying things for the sake of argument that he doesn't actually believe.

No problem, I was no offended. I just wanted it clarified is all. I am skeptical though, and as Douglas Hofstadter noted in his truly interesting work "Metamagical Themas" skeptical not meaning unbelief, but asking questions and inquiring. I hope I didn't offend you either, truly. I mean no offense, I am just passionate about many things, and learning is one of them. I can't STAND it when I feel duped........ and right now I am trying to make it so I am not duped again, which means for me, an absolute truckload of reading for the next few years. God has blessed me with a good ability to read fairly quick and remember at least 3 things in a 500 page book.....

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Here's something I wish more people would keep in mind before they say something like "there is no God".

The word "God" is generally used to refer to the most supreme being in all of existence, and while some people have been mistaken about which being that is, there is (and must be) a supreme being among all of the beings there are, and whichever one that is, that is the one that is God.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to realize that point, but for some reason many people don't seem to get that.

Actually your assumptions are seriously showing here. This is merely the western view, and that means its a minority as far as the world population is concerned. And then again, others' god doesn't actually count does it? Only OUR god matters and is real. The problem is everyone actually thinks that way. That's why Zeus and Apollo and Thor actually DO exist. For millions they worshipped these divine beings for centuries carrying on rituals, prayers, etc. for them, and they testify they were helped by their deities at least in their writings. From our advantage and perspective, but of course, they are myths..... such is our bias. I suspect in another millennium, Jesus Christ will be seen as a mere myth like Zeus is now. After all how many hundreds, literally now, hundreds of gods have now died to the world? Even gods don't live forever, the vast majority of them are gone too, just like the men who invented them. Er, except for Jesus, he, of course, was revealed as real for us. But then again, that is precisely what is claimed for all those ancient dead gods too. I'm just sayin.......

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Were God to communicate with us through our brains, what would the MRI look like?

According to Vilayanur Ramachandran (as reported in Newsweek May 7, 2001, Sharon Begley reporting) the god area of the brain is Broca's area, also responsible for speech. This is why people hearing voices in their brain attribute it to God. Electrical activity stimulating the frontal lobes cause voices to occur in the deeply religious part of the brain, and the people KNOW they hear God, but they don't. It is Broca's area turning on. John Schumaker in "The Corruption of Reality: A Unified Theory of Religion, Hypnosis, and Psychopathology," (1995) showed that a man under hypnosis can go under what is called trance logic which allows us to accept two contradictory sets of information at the same time. A man is told after he is hypnotized that his wife is sitting in the chair next to him. He agrees and carries on a conversation with her, and even leans over and hugs her and kisses her. There is LITERALLY no one there. Then he is told that his wife is ALSO in the chair to his left now as she is in the right chair. He ALSO agrees and chats with her! When his actual wife is brought on stage, he knows that is his wife ALSO! He maintains that all three of them are real, and are his wife. He shows no bewilderment or puzzling expressions, but accepts the facts as he sees them as real. In the trance state, people can delude themselves about a matter while also knowing the truth about it. They can be in touch and out of touch with reality all at the same time. If he is told he can only pick one of the wives to go home with him, he picks his actual wife and leaves the other two in the chairs behind because he KNOWS they are not real, even though he conversed with them, kissed them etc. Because they are real and not real at the same time. Schumaker says that what we call religion in a disassociative state (which IS religion in our minds) is what is real to us and it causes both auditory and hallucinations as real revelation to us, or else an intense religious feeling or experience that we identify as being real, but it is all psychological in our brains with no reality of it in the actual world. (I find this information - summarized by me - in James Riskas, "Deconstructing Mormonism," Free Atheist Press, 2011: 179-182. It is a tightly packed small print enormous book of over 500 pages, so instead of writing out the 4 pages, I hope I summarized it well enough to understand). There is a lot more detail than what I have presented here. The conclusion of the neuroscience is, through electrical stimulation and tracking of the brain in Broca's Area of the brain and the frontal lobes, all religious experience occurs, even of God himself coming and visiting the patient and the doctor is right there but, of course, what the patient is seeing as really physical and TALKING to HIM, is not there at all. It is all ghosts in the mind, naturally electrically stimulated, but people who through music, social pressure, and other kinds of conditionings, experience God as real in their lives because the stimuli also turn on that part of the brain that gives us God. And none of it is really there. It's amazing to read this stuff.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[volgadon]

According to Vilayanur Ramachandran (as reported in Newsweek May 7, 2001, Sharon Begley reporting) the god area of the brain is Broca's area, also responsible for speech. This is why people hearing voices in their brain attribute it to God. Electrical activity stimulating the frontal lobes cause voices to occur in the deeply religious part of the brain, and the people KNOW they hear God, but they don't. It is Broca's area turning on. John Schumaker in "The Corruption of Reality: A Unified Theory of Religion, Hypnosis, and Psychopathology," (1995) showed that a man under hypnosis can go under what is called trance logic which allows us to accept two contradictory sets of information at the same time. A man is told after he is hypnotized that his wife is sitting in the chair next to him. He agrees and carries on a conversation with her, and even leans over and hugs her and kisses her. There is LITERALLY no one there. Then he is told that his wife is ALSO in the chair to his left now as she is in the right chair. He ALSO agrees and chats with her! When his actual wife is brought on stage, he knows that is his wife ALSO! He maintains that all three of them are real, and are his wife. He shows no bewilderment or puzzling expressions, but accepts the facts as he sees them as real. In the trance state, people can delude themselves about a matter while also knowing the truth about it. They can be in touch and out of touch with reality all at the same time. If he is told he can only pick one of the wives to go home with him, he picks his actual wife and leaves the other two in the chairs behind because he KNOWS they are not real, even though he conversed with them, kissed them etc. Because they are real and not real at the same time. Schumaker says that what we call religion in a disassociative state (which IS religion in our minds) is what is real to us and it causes both auditory and hallucinations as real revelation to us, or else an intense religious feeling or experience that we identify as being real, but it is all psychological in our brains with no reality of it in the actual world. (I find this information - summarized by me - in James Riskas, "Deconstructing Mormonism," Free Atheist Press, 2011: 179-182. It is a tightly packed small print enormous book of over 500 pages, so instead of writing out the 4 pages, I hope I summarized it well enough to understand). There is a lot more detail than what I have presented here. The conclusion of the neuroscience is, through electrical stimulation and tracking of the brain in Broca's Area of the brain and the frontal lobes, all religious experience occurs, even of God himself coming and visiting the patient and the doctor is right there but, of course, what the patient is seeing as really physical and TALKING to HIM, is not there at all. It is all ghosts in the mind, naturally electrically stimulated, but people who through music, social pressure, and other kinds of conditionings, experience God as real in their lives because the stimuli also turn on that part of the brain that gives us God. And none of it is really there. It's amazing to read this stuff.

None of that actually answers my question. Were God to communicate with us through our brains, what would the MRI's look like?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

None of that actually answers my question. Were God to communicate with us through our brains, what would the MRI's look like?

The Broca's area and Frontal lobes are what fires when God is perceived in the brain, God can't come from the outside, he is already here, inside.....the brain. Perhaps we could hook up the prophet and brethren with MRI's and have them pray to God and see what their MRI's show eh? That might be kinda cool actually!

[volgadon]

The Broca's area and Frontal lobes are what fires when God is perceived in the brain, God can't come from the outside, he is already here, inside.....the brain. Perhaps we could hook up the prophet and brethren with MRI's and have them pray to God and see what their MRI's show eh? That might be kinda cool actually!

Let's assume for a minute that God was communicating with us, doing so by using our brain, would MRI results look anything different than the results of Ramachandran's research? That is, do our brains have a different way of conveying that information?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Let's assume for a minute that God was communicating with us, doing so by using our brain, would MRI results look anything different than the results of Ramachandran's research? That is, do our brains have a different way of conveying that information?

No. There would be no way of differentiating God from our own brain processes, that is the point. It is natural for our brains to work at presenting God to us when he isn't really there. Whether God, someone else, or our own thinking during prayer, the brain works the same, so far as I understand (which is truly very little)..... God is entirely subjective, so far as neuroscience has discovered thus far. Of course, there hasn't been anything near exhaustive research or work yet. But there is enough here to establish a trend.

[volgadon]

No. There would be no way of differentiating God from our own brain processes, that is the point.

Exactly, that is the point. It defangs the argument. What the research does is show further how our brains work, it isn't exactly a death-knell. Don't hear nine tailors ringing out for God yet.

[zerinus]

Attn Kerry. The following is the reply I prepared to give your other thread just before it was locked:

Someone accused me of being an atheist. No, I regret to inform you that prophecy in LDS public is as lousy as in history and scripture. What I am is skeptical. Now that I am checking on my own assumptions, which is pretty much all the assumptions the rest of we Mormons hold also, I am asking far tougher questions of my own beliefs, as well as others, and I am finding it interesting that all the sudden the only response that is comforting, because, many questions being asked are not answerable without serious cognitive dissonance on all our parts, is to falsely accuse me of atheism. Let me clarify, I am a skeptic of many things I have been taught to believe simply on faith and that just because an authority proclaims a doctrine I was to believe it. I have been told, as we all have, what to think all my life. Now that I am learning HOW to think THROUGH my assumptions and take them ALL THE WAY TO THEIR HONEST CONCLUSION, I admit, I have become quite skeptical of a lot. If it really does bother many of you, we can carry on conversations email, and I will stop posting here so as to quit disturbing the comfortable cushion of equilibrium of faith you all live in.

I am sincerely sorry for interrupting several threads with my own personal problem of doubts. If I feel the need to actually air them, I shall start new threads and quit worrying about showing the illogical stance so many continue to believe is the truth. That way nuthin gets derailed.

Thanks,

Kerry

I think that your problem is Kerry, and has been all along, that you have been trying to find God through "scholarship" (including "science"); and after years of fruitless search, you are now (finally) admitting to failure. That is not just your problem actually; it is the problem of many Mormon so called "scholars"--except that you are being honest enough to admit it, and they haven't been. You need to retrace your steps, and find out where you went wrong. I can help you. Your predicament stems from the false "Mormon" notion that everything is "natural," and nothing is spiritual; and that man "by searching" can find God. That is false. Neither science nor scholarship (however good) will ever lead one to God. God can only be known by revelation, and not in any other way. Once you have discarded that mentality, and "unlearnt" everything that you have learned through "scholarship" (it is going to be tough!), and retraced your steps to where you went wrong, then you are ready to take the right fork that will lead you to finding and knowing God. You took the wrong turn somewhere. You need to go back to where you took that wrong turn, and then choose the right turn which you missed, and it will take you to the destination you are searching for.

Edited August 4, 2012 by zerinus

[volgadon]

I think that your problem is Kerry, and has been all along, that you have been trying to find God through "scholarship" (including "science"); and after years of fruitless search, you are now (finally) admitting to failure. That is not just your problem actually; it is the problem of many Mormon so called "scholars"--except that you are being honest enough to admit it, and they haven't been.

Zerinus giveth, Zerinus taketh away, blessed be the name of Zerinus.

If that isn't true, I seriously recommend answering just where you get off claiming to know the inner thoughts and workings of others.

[zerinus]

Zerinus giveth, Zerinus taketh away, blessed be the name of Zerinus.

If that isn't true, I seriously recommend answering just where you get off claiming to know the inner thoughts and workings of others.

That is because I am smart!

[shalamabobbi]

That is because I am smart!

This one will end up at the trailer park..