Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[mfbukowski]

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."

Logical positivism was dead long ago.

[mfbukowski]

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.

So?

Read my siggy- Nagel's article.

Very frustrating. The same thing over and over. No communication whatsoever.

Edited August 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

God is entirely subjective, so far as neuroscience has discovered thus far.

So is your existence as far as neuroscience has discovered so far. I have a little spot in my brain called "Kerry Shirts". So do the rest of us.

I guess that proves conclusively you do not exist. Neither does the Eiffel Tower because that is in my brain too.

Edited August 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yo.

[Robert F. Smith]

Science also provides the tools to get rid of smallpox, measles, and diptheria alleviating the suffering of millions. It is up to people to use science properly and technology properly. Would you propose we go back to the days of the 1100's technology wise so weapons will be less advanced? What about medicine, communication, etc.?

You have completely missed the point on the value of science and technology several times, even though it has been explained to you. A scientist would accept a valid critique. You do not. A scientist understands the principles of science and uses them. You do not.

Science and technology have been used by the best scientists and engineers to create industrial death on a vast scale, whether we are talking about the Nazi death camps and cremation ovens, or the gas attacks on the Kurds by the late Saddam Hussein. Modern technology can deliver quantum death even more easily than it can discover the Higgs Boson. You understand neither principle and you keep making utterly ridiculous claims about the nice things science and technology can do, while ignoring the bad things it can do. So, while Assad of Syria continues to use high technology to murder his own people, tell me more about how science and technology are so "good." Convince yourself, and carefully forget that science and technology are neutral.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, science has the track record and it works.

Yes, science and technology have a track record. They work. They give us the best drugs money can buy, and the Mexican cartels consider their business worth billions. They defend it with the best weapons available. That's science & technology for you. They work. And they have no ethical or moral principles.

Religion has been giving ground steadily since Newton's day. I find in not one single solitary area where science has agreed and seen the evidences that religion has the evidences for a truth claim and so science backs down.

I notice that you are unable to define religion, and are unable to distinguish various religions from one another. To you they are apparently all the same. Even though it has been carefully explained to you how they differ, you ignore the data. Scientists don't ignore data.

You parrot the words of the hatemongers, but you haven't read history, and you are allowing yourself to be sold a bill of goods by those hatemongers -- who are only too happy that you are unable to distinguish truth from falsehood on your own. You've been lied to and you have bought the lie that religion must always be weak and science & technology always strong. The murder and destruction by science & technology bother you not at all.

But I see many, many, MANY areas where religion has no choice but to agree science is where it is at. Why do you think religion is so desperate to make ITS own teaching appear as ***scientific***? This is an obvious admission that as religion it has far and away less clout than science does, so it MUST do everything it can fair or cheating to fool people into thinking it is science. Have you ever asked yourself WHY religion has to do this? Seriously? Have you ever ONCE in all of creation seen science trying to pass itself of AS religion?! Of course not, it has no need of it.

Of course science & technology has to be turned into a religion by people like you. You are a new convert to scientism. You are a true believer. However, not only do you know nearly nothing about science & technology, but you have falsely agrandized it. As for the Soviets, with their "scientific" theory of government, you will be disappointed when it comes crashing down around you and leaves you with nothing.

But religion obviously, and I mean obviously HAS to get aligned with science somehow in order to continue being relevant, because science has been shrinking the value of religion for centuries now, changing the "revealed picture of truth" religion used to teach as THE TRUTH, and getting rid of old silly superstitions like casting out demons and flying through the air, etc. Science works. It is honestly just that simple. Religion KNOWS this, as does anyone and everyone else with common sense, and so it MUST become scientific or lose credibility. But in trying to do so religion has only ONE choice......JUST ONE...... quit faking it with faith as knowledge, and start showing the empirical evidences for God, salvation, heaven, resurrection, etc. Until evidences show up and religion allows true and actual testing of its claims it will simply fail as it continues to do so. Quit pretending it has the goods, and start SHOWING it like science obviously does.

You have shown no interest in either real science & technology on the one hand, nor in real testing of the claims of religion on the other. Your false descriptions show only prejudice against religion and a fear of actual testing. Indeed, you wouldn't know a scientific test if it stared you in the face. It really wouldn't hurt you to go to the nearest university or college and take several years of science. I'd suggest a two-semester course in physics, accompanied by a year of college algebra, followed by a year of chemistry. Then you could start taking some serious courses in advanced algebra, accompanied by courses in astronomy, biology, neuroscience, etc. After a couple of years, you might actually begin to understand the fundamentals of science. By the time you obtain your masters degree, you might actually be able to discuss the issues in a coherent way. At present, I see no evidence that you are able to be rational and logical.

[Robert F. Smith]

Why yes, of course, we get rid of the bungles - DUH! Isn't that the point? And whoever proposed that because science doesn't know how to explain everything yet that therefore it's defective? The computer you are using isn't perfect, but you can still use it. Television is not a perfect communication media. but you don't see the General Authorities during General Conference NOT using it in the mean time do you? Yo think technology is just so so? Pray tell then, WHY don't the General Authorities, rather than using scientific means of communications (T.V., Radio, Internet) just all get on their knees pray for the Spirit to teach us all every general conference and we all simply receive it through the spirit as the scriptures say we will? You know doggone good and well it is because the scientific ways of communicating are vastly more effective, useful, and good. The automobiles we ride in and drive aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean they are useless? And your howling against technologies is interesting to me. MANY diseases have been eradicated or many millions are no longer suffering unnecessary pain and suffering because of the science of medicine and technologies we have developed. Because it doesn't yet have ALL answers do we quit immunizing and developing new medicines because, forsooth, we don't know it all yet?! Now then lets turn the tables. Where has God been through the millenia? Obviously given what theology proposes about God, he does care for us as his children, yes? So where was we during all those centuries of peoples suffering from smallpox, measles, diptheria, etc.? How much unnecessary suffering and pain has God eliminated in just the last 2 centuries compared to science? Can we actually and logically conclude that our science morals are superior to God's morals since we are at least doing something GOOD and LOVING for people while God is doing who knows what, and where ever he decides to do whatever it is he is doing? He obviously hasn't been around here much helping his children from their suffering like science has. God says he loves us, but allows us so much unnecessary suffering. Humans using scientific medicines developed thanks to evolution and technology say they love us, and they SHOW us with the evidence and actions. Make fun or light of it all you want. Do you honestly wish me to think your pretense against science somehow validates God? Exactly and specifically would that come about with evidence to properly assess that kind of thinking? Because science is incomplete the default position is supposed to be a loving God then? Really?!

Here you privilege science & technology, and hate religion. Is that fair? Is that what your version of science & technology means? Why do you hate religion so much that you will falsify its nature?

You herewith deliberately develop a false dichotomy between science and religion, because it suits you, not because it is true. And you do so fully knowing that history is replete with examples of religion using science and technology. They always have. There is no reason not to, although you pretend that there is such a reason, and that the LDS Church should eschew religion. I know of no such principle. You invented it only for the sake of argument. That is inappropriate on this board. If you want to carry on a coherent discussion here, at least have the goodness to be logical, factual, and coherent.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Here you privilege science & technology, and hate religion. Is that fair? Is that what your version of science & technology means? Why do you hate religion so much that you will falsify its nature?

You herewith deliberately develop a false dichotomy between science and religion, because it suits you, not because it is true. And you do so fully knowing that history is replete with examples of religion using science and technology. They always have. There is no reason not to, although you pretend that there is such a reason, and that the LDS Church should eschew religion. I know of no such principle. You invented it only for the sake of argument. That is inappropriate on this board. If you want to carry on a coherent discussion here, at least have the goodness to be logical, factual, and coherent.

In other words, it is more than obvious to you that the argument is unassailable because it is factually true. You can't refute it, so, in good scholarly fashion you simply assert and pretend and hope no one else notices that you are bankrupt against the facts yes? In what way specifically can you, if at all, refute the obvious point in my post without worrying about how much I know or don't know. Scientific knowledge in the form of medicine has relieved the suffering of MILLIONS of poor people while God did exactly nothing to help alleviate their suffering, and he COULD have had he chose to. Can you refute this or not? Facts, evidence, you know the stuff scientific discoveries are made of that I obviously am too damn dense to comprehend while you know vastly more than I ever will. Put your knowledge to work and show me then which side alleviates more suffering here and now and go ahead and try to convince me of the implications, using the evidence. A hint, try to comprehend that wish fuliflling fantasies of faith is NOT evidence. I mean the real stuff in our real world.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kevin Christensen]

The premise that God "did exactly nothing to alleviate there suffering, and that he COULD have had he chosen to" is, I notice, is based on the assumption that if God was ever going to alleviate suffering in a meaningful way, he would do it via public demonstration and even then, he's still morally accountable because he didn't alleviate suffering before it happened and he should have done so. The premise seems to be that if a child dies, or a population is massacred, then that event, viewed from the here and now, provides all possible evidence of God's activity, and that evidence, viewed from the here and now is self-interpreting and incriminates God of the unforgivable crime of not behaving as we would, if we had the power in the here and now.

The unspoken, unexamined premise presumes that our perspective is sufficient to test God, and does not bother to consider a scenario in which we are being tested, and that God has actually done a greate deal to alleviate suffering that we may not see, or may not be open to seeing.

Take for instance, the story in the Ensign come years ago, of a little girl in a trailer home when the gas heater blew up, and the sleeping bag that she was in caught fire, and she was rescued with burns over 90% if her body. Afterwards, she reported that she had been away from her body, safe in the lap of Jesus, and that he comforted her and said, "I know it hurts, but you have to go back. You have things to do." With that comfort, she came back, with that vision of hope, she endures the burn therapy with hope, and gives hope.

If I take that account seriously (and personally I do, having read a great many such accounts), and if I can generalize about its implications, then God is actually doing much more to alleviate suffering, wiping away the tears from the eyes of those who suffered in their lives, in a lasting, meaningful way, than has made it to the balance scale as scene from a skeptical, here and now perspective. It tells me that suffering here and now is temporary, and has both an end in time and a purpose in eternity, and that Jesus takes a personal interest, and that his at-one-ment, is exactly that, At-one with each of us, in our worst moments. That accounts for uncounted personal experiences. I know many people who experience God's comfort in a deeply personal way.

If, on the other hand, I adopt a Positivist outlook, the best I could do is say to such a child, "You were deluding yourself. The vision of comfort is all in your head. Jesus doesn't exist to care. It will only linger and get worse and end in meaninglessness. Euthansia is your best option. And besides, you'll be less of an emotional and financial burden on the rest of us."

But I don't have that attitude. This life is not a paradise because it was not meant to be. It's our test, of how we will behave, about what we will do with our time and experience. That premise provides a way to account for suffering in a way that exhonerates God. God's trial took place in Gethsemane and on the Cross.

Scientific progress is a wonderful thing, but viewing Science as the sum of its successes, and ignoring the obvious fact that it works by constant repentence from its constant failures gives a misleading perspective. The history of the ether, phlogistons, impetus theory, Ptolemiac astronomy, Lamarkian evolution, Hoyle's steady state theory, and such, do not discredit science. But they are a part of recognizing how it works in real life, and illustrate the limits of it's authority. Defining religion in terms of its failures and ignoring the real effect that it has had for good in countless lives also gives a misleading perspective. (See, for instance, Rene Girard's work in I See Satan Fall Life Lighting, for instance his enlightening chapter on "The Modern Concern for Victims." Framing explorations of religious belief that ignores the actual reasons why people have believed is not good science, however characterisitic is is of Positivist thinking. I've mentioned numinous experience, mystic experience, awe and wonder at the cosmos and nature, Buber's sense of "personal dialogue", moral obligation that transcends or contradicts cultural conditioning, experiences of Reorientation and Reconcilliation with respect to personal sin, guilt, the existential questions of life, and tensions between particular questions of interpretation of science and religion, various key historical events, and such.

You've said that religion always backs down to science. You've not dealt with the issue that in many instances, what conservative religion was defending in many instances, it got from science. Nor that both the Biblical recommendations for seeing truth involves and open ended search for knowledge, not a static adoption of on-the-shelf, not to be challenged or questions beliefs on every topic, nor that LDS authority in particular explicitly involves an open ended search for knowledge in which of leading opinions, "inasmuch as they erred it might be made known, and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed...."

And there are many instances where science was wrong and has confirmed religion. For instance, John Clark recently spoke on Book of Mormon archeology:

The trend over the last 50 years is one of convergence between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830, so all the accommodation has been on the archaeology side.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

Some years ago, I heard a conference talk in which the speaker noted a description of the importance of quarentine, washing or burning bedding and clothing as described in Leviticus 13 for disease control, followed by an account of just how long that notion was ignored, and for a time actively resisted by doctors.

In the past few years, brain scans have demonstrated that those who follow 12 step recovery for addictions actually experience healing in the damaged portions of their brains. The AA Book based the steps on Biblical Principles, and Collen Harrison's He Did Deliever Me From Bondage demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is even clearer on the twelve steps than the Bible. In such matters, or personal healing and reformation, science is just catching up with religion. Addiction recovery is not about wish fullfilling fantasy, but about accomodating reality. Real stuff in the real world that alleviates suffering and affects life in the present and generations to come.

You've having a hard time noticing these aspects, and I think that is because of the power of the paradigm you are using. It's not because you aren't brilliant. You are. And I don't think you mean to be obtuse on the matter. You want to be reasonable and rational, and you passionately insist on this, which passion, of course, shows that reason and rationality are riding horses that they don't completely control. It's more like what Kuhn describes through the "anomalous card" experiment. The subjects were asked to identify cards in a deck that, unbeknowns to them, and therefore contrary to their perceptual and conceptual expectations, contained things like a red 9 of spades, or a black queen of hearts. And their minds resisted the perception. They tended to notice and value only what they expected, only what fit with their model of how things are. But eventually they see, first that something odd is going on, confused discomfort and self doubt, and then, eventually, with clairity. You'll get there, and you'll probably have more to teach us when you do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 4, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Carborendum]

From the 17 pts of the true church: Einstein said,"The more I delve into the mysteries of the universe, the more thoroughly am I convinced that there is a conscious force, being, or influence that governs all that goes on."

The evidence is there. But few who are so focused on the "methodology of science" are willing to look at the big picture of what is being discovered.

While it is true that spiritual and physical are intimately connected, we have to understand that some parts of the physical are so beyond our technology, we don't even have any way of testing for it. Imagine how cavemen might test for nuclear radiation. Not only would the concept not even occur to them, but the technology required to even conceive of a test itself was thousands of year away. Therefore, there is no such thing as radiation.

We seem to be so smug in our modern technology that we believe we must know everything about everything. Thus if we cannot test for or prove God exists, he does not exist.

How about a more humble approach? We realize that God is (even in a physical manner) on such a level that we can't even begin to develop the technology that will help us conceive of the test itself. How could we test for something that is a million years ahead of us in technology?

An episode of Stargate SG-1 had refugees from an advanced civilization stranded on earth. The subject of transportation and communications across many light years came up. The earthling asked how it was possible. The alien explained. The Terran thought he knew what he was saying.

The alien responded:"No, it... You wouldn't understand."

Fiction, I know. But it puts forth a very real principle. Those who worship the scientific method are quite willing to humble themselves in the face of advanced technology, saying,"I guess that is just too advanced for us to understand right now".

But to humble themselves before God to the point we can say,"I guess I'm not spiritually prepared for that right now" is foolishness?

How about,"The level of technology required to understand God in a scientific manner is far beyond our capabilities to do." Is that more palatable? Apparently not. After all we know so much about the brain now that we can declare with absolute certainty that we know the portion of the brain responsible for God. Nevermind that the entire notion is based on the fact that God is nothing more than a hallucination. Take that assumption out of the equation, and they've got nothing.

In the end, knowing God is, as it has always been, about pride vs. humility.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Carborendum

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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.

It defangs the argument for God doing so. There is no reason to add an extra hypothesis when we understand it is simply our own brains with no outside influence. That is the point the neuroscientists note

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The premise that God "did exactly nothing to alleviate there suffering, and that he COULD have had he chosen to" is, I notice, is based on the assumption that if God was ever going to alleviate suffering in a meaningful way, he would do it via public demonstration and even then, he's still morally accountable because he didn't alleviate suffering before it happened and he should have done so. The premise seems to be that if a child dies, or a population is massacred, then that event, viewed from the here and now, provides all possible evidence of God's activity, and that evidence, viewed from the here and now is self-interpreting and incriminates God of the unforgivable crime of not behaving as we would, if we had the power in the here and now.

The unspoken, unexamined premise presumes that our perspective is sufficient to test God, and does not bother to consider a scenario in which we are being tested, and that God has actually done a greate deal to alleviate suffering that we may not see, or may not be open to seeing.

Take for instance, the story in the Ensign come years ago, of a little girl in a trailer home when the gas heater blew up, and the sleeping bag that she was in caught fire, and she was rescued with burns over 90% if her body. Afterwards, she reported that she had been away from her body, safe in the lap of Jesus, and that he comforted her and said, "I know it hurts, but you have to go back. You have things to do." With that comfort, she came back, with that vision of hope, she endures the burn therapy with hope, and gives hope.

If I take that account seriously (and personally I do, having read a great many such accounts), and if I can generalize about its implications, then God is actually doing much more to alleviate suffering, wiping away the tears from the eyes of those who suffered in their lives, in a lasting, meaningful way, than has made it to the balance scale as scene from a skeptical, here and now perspective. It tells me that suffering here and now is temporary, and has both an end in time and a purpose in eternity, and that Jesus takes a personal interest, and that his at-one-ment, is exactly that, At-one with each of us, in our worst moments. That accounts for uncounted personal experiences. I know many people who experience God's comfort in a deeply personal way.

If, on the other hand, I adopt a Positivist outlook, the best I could do is say to such a child, "You were deluding yourself. The vision of comfort is all in your head. Jesus doesn't exist to care. It will only linger and get worse and end in meaninglessness. Euthansia is your best option. And besides, you'll be less of an emotional and financial burden on the rest of us."

But I don't have that attitude. This life is not a paradise because it was not meant to be. It's our test, of how we will behave, about what we will do with our time and experience. That premise provides a way to account for suffering in a way that exhonerates God. God's trial took place in Gethsemane and on the Cross.

Scientific progress is a wonderful thing, but viewing Science as the sum of its successes, and ignoring the obvious fact that it works by constant repentence from its constant failures gives a misleading perspective. The history of the ether, phlogistons, impetus theory, Ptolemiac astronomy, Lamarkian evolution, Hoyle's steady state theory, and such, do not discredit science. But they are a part of recognizing how it works in real life, and illustrate the limits of it's authority. Defining religion in terms of its failures and ignoring the real effect that it has had for good in countless lives also gives a misleading perspective. (See, for instance, Rene Girard's work in I See Satan Fall Life Lighting, for instance his enlightening chapter on "The Modern Concern for Victims." Framing explorations of religious belief that ignores the actual reasons why people have believed is not good science, however characterisitic is is of Positivist thinking. I've mentioned numinous experience, mystic experience, awe and wonder at the cosmos and nature, Buber's sense of "personal dialogue", moral obligation that transcends or contradicts cultural conditioning, experiences of Reorientation and Reconcilliation with respect to personal sin, guilt, the existential questions of life, and tensions between particular questions of interpretation of science and religion, various key historical events, and such.

You've said that religion always backs down to science. You've not dealt with the issue that in many instances, what conservative religion was defending in many instances, it got from science. Nor that both the Biblical recommendations for seeing truth involves and open ended search for knowledge, not a static adoption of on-the-shelf, not to be challenged or questions beliefs on every topic, nor that LDS authority in particular explicitly involves an open ended search for knowledge in which of leading opinions, "inasmuch as they erred it might be made known, and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed...."

And there are many instances where science was wrong and has confirmed religion. For instance, John Clark recently spoke on Book of Mormon archeology:

http://maxwellinstit...um=2&id=376

Some years ago, I heard a conference talk in which the speaker noted a description of the importance of quarentine, washing or burning bedding and clothing as described in Leviticus 13 for disease control, followed by an account of just how long that notion was ignored, and for a time actively resisted by doctors.

In the past few years, brain scans have demonstrated that those who follow 12 step recovery for addictions actually experience healing in the damaged portions of their brains. The AA Book based the steps on Biblical Principles, and Collen Harrison's He Did Deliever Me From Bondage demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is even clearer on the twelve steps than the Bible. In such matters, or personal healing and reformation, science is just catching up with religion. Addiction recovery is not about wish fullfilling fantasy, but about accomodating reality. Real stuff in the real world that alleviates suffering and affects life in the present and generations to come.

You've having a hard time noticing these aspects, and I think that is because of the power of the paradigm you are using. It's not because you aren't brilliant. You are. And I don't think you mean to be obtuse on the matter. You want to be reasonable and rational, and you passionately insist on this, which passion, of course, shows that reason and rationality are riding horses that they don't completely control. It's more like what Kuhn describes through the "anomalous card" experiment. The subjects were asked to identify cards in a deck that, unbeknowns to them, and therefore contrary to their perceptual and conceptual expectations, contained things like a red 9 of spades, or a black queen of hearts. And their minds resisted the perception. They tended to notice and value only what they expected, only what fit with their model of how things are. But eventually they see, first that something odd is going on, confused discomfort and self doubt, and then, eventually, with clairity. You'll get there, and you'll probably have more to teach us when you do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

All very interesting and I appreciate the efforts, however, the fact is millions have suffered needlessly, and why is God only choosing just a very astonishingly few to help when in fact, assuming theology is correct, God really does love us and CARE about us, yet lets millions go by the wayside? This sincerely makes no sense anymore to me. I promise, I am not trying to be obtuse, but why so selective from God's end? Seriously? Let millions go while helping maybe an odd stray one here and there? It simply is impossible to make sense of. The problem of evil is the argument against all the theology concerning God ever invented or revealed. Reality simply doesn't work the way theology wishes God was. Life is the refutation of theodicy, without question. I once was quite impressed with Nibley's Enoch theodicy. Now it is obviously just a house of cards on the foundation of wishful thinking. Nibley did not take the logic all the way, but stopped it at faith promoting. I'm honestly trying to make heads or tails of it, and simply can't anymore. Perhaps I am so weak that I won't be able to, but then many far greater than I have tried and failed. It's not a matter of have faith, it's a matter of making sense of the facts of history, scripture, and life right now. The evidence is much more against any good God than in favor. And I admit, it's quite a fascinating struggle to be involved with.

[thesometimesaint]

Why are you not helping those millions of sufferers?

Would it really be all that good for God to step in and solve all our problems without any effort on our part?

Every single one of us is going to die. Every single one of us, except those that didn't keep their first estate, is going to be Resurrected. Where have we lost anything?

Depends on what goal you are after. The purpose of the church is to make bad men good, and good men better.

We are not the problems we are presented with, but the choices we make to solve those problems.

I have no desire for God to come in and solve all my problems for me. That was Lucifer's plan.

Wishful thinking? Not hardly. Was Jesus lying when he made his promise's.

Just depends on how you interpret those "facts".

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

[Kevin Christensen]

If your starting premise is, "This situation cannot be right, cannot have any meaning, cannot have an explanation, and nothing that anyone says or does or experiences, and no change of perspective or passage of time, even passage through death can change that fact," then how conversation can go anywhere?

On the other hand, asking "Why? Help me to understand," at least opens a door. It's saying, maybe if I move to a different framework, adopt a different perspective, allow a different range of observations and experience, I might find a better understanding. It's the difference between Peter saying to Jesus, "No! That cannot be!" and being rebuked, and Abraham asking "Why?"

You say, "LIfe is the refutation of theodicy, without question." I say life raises questions, yes, but does not, and CANNOT answer them. Life, and postivistic approaches to solving life's problems bring inherently limited perspectives. So, what next?

We are having a paradigm debate. So think that through. Paradigm debates are characterized by chronic debate about fundamentals, and people tending to talk through each other, rather than to each other. Paradigms are defined by generalizing from a particular set of standard examples of scientific work. We start from different frameworks, and from inside them notice and value different things.

Yep.

How are our paradigms made? Which standard examples do you use, and how do they define the methods, problem fields and standards of solution that you work with?

I know what mine are. Which paradigm is better? Which problems are most significant to have solved?

The fact is that God has helped me. I have seen him help others. He has even helped me through others, and allowed me to be his means of helping others.

What about the millions then? I do not believe for one moment that God does let the millions go by the wayside. Nor do I believe that God is only helping a few. Nor do I believe that God is separate from either the will of the means that have been used to help people in modern times. Nor that the moment and manner of death provides the epitome of a life's meaning for all time. Scientists can discover something like a vacine. Wonderful. Do you not think scientists ever have inspirations? Or did Einstein never dream about riding a light beam. Or Russell Nelson not get an inspired vision of a way to operate on a heart valve? Or did the benzine ring not come in a dream. And where does the will and the means come to actually deliver that relief emerge from after it has been discovered? Profit motive? Dawkin's selfish genes? Or something like the light of Christ? (Read Rene Girard, writing as an anthropologist interested in the roots of violence on the topic of what a difference Christianity has made.)

What about the millions who have suffered? I've suffered personally. Broken bones, heartbreak, disease, hunger, age, lots of dental work, loss of loved ones through death, frustrations, periods of unemployment, family stresses, personal inabilities, and violence inflicted on my person... I've got a pretty good idea of the concept. Some may have more, some less, but I do have a general idea.

Should I generalize about those millions purely on the basis of my suffering as isolated from any meaningful context, or should I also include my personal witness of divine help? Should I take all the credit when I've been able to help someone else, or, should I be honest and admit that I've been inspired and helped at times? That it's not me doing what God should do so that I can just spend more time doing what I want, but rather God doing his will through me, and letting me learn from that experience with eternity in mind?

Does eternity provide some perspective on the issue of present suffering, or is meaning, or is potential meaning only found in the moment of suffering? I have to go with perspective, rather than the moment because of the countless times that I only found redemptive meaning later. Sometimes months or years or decades later. Should the redemptive meaning I have personally found be excluded when I define the problem field, methods, and standards of solution for the problem of theodicy? Granted I should not over-generalize from my personal experience, but when I find those experiences and attitudes amplified by reading, for example, Givens' When Souls Had Wings, as part of a consistant pattern across thousands of years of civilization and many different observations, then, it does, I think, deserve more of a hearing. And when I read up on Process Theology and find resonance, or NDE accounts, or comparative mythology, or comparative religious experience, I'm not just relying on LDS cultural orthodoxy, but reaching for further light and knowledge.

And take for instance, a story in Kenneth Ring's book Heading toward Omega, pages 76-92. A women there tells the story of having an NDE shortly before giving birth to her child. While in the presence of the Lord, she is told that she has to go back, but that he will come for her baby in four days. Her thought, in the presence of that love and light was joy, thinking,"You mean I GET to let my baby go with you!" What does that shift in perspective do in the face of temporal loss and suffering?

In a story like that, I see a personal God who takes a personal interest. Why don't more people have that kind of experience? Well, statistically speaking, about one in 30 has had something like that kind of experience. (See Adventure in Immortality, Gallup). People keep sacred experiences close. But they really do happen. The story itself provides comfort and hope and relief for suffering, with a promise of meaning, of reunions, of hope and redemption and purpose. Such experiences lead to changes in behavior that extends from the individuals to the lives that they subsequently touch, usually through small acts of kindness that spread like ripples. Does God not get credit for any influence there? Does only direct visible intervention count as evidence? Does what you not see, or quite often, not look for or not notice because your attention is directed elsewhere, not exist? What scientist could work with that assumption? The lists of spiritual gifts in the Book of Mormon and the D&C is that some are given to know, and others to believe on their words, and others, other gifts, whether knowledge, or administration, or something else.

Reductive comments about "brain chemistry... delusion..." provide what exactly? It's what Nibley describes in Paths that Stray as the "piteous disappointment, puzzling deadness of spirit, and a world plagued by doubt, insecurity, deadness and despair." (Ancient State, p 431).

At the NDE conference I attended in SLC in 1999, the most unforgettable moment for me was when one girl who had been raised as Jew with the idea that you lived an ethical life to be a good person, that there was no spirit, no after life. So her first thought in looking at herself in spiritual existence was, "I hate being wrong!"

I don't think the problems you are having in "making sense of the facts of history, scripture and life," are because you are not equal to the task, and then some, but because you are taking a stand in a position that denies you the framework, the problem field, the methods, and standards of solution in which the answers can appear. It's like trying to see a rainbow in windowless library, refusing to go outside under the right conditions to do so. I remember when the Magic Eye books were all the rage. People who learned how to see the images were fascinated, and those that couldn't would hypothesize that no one could really see anything, that it was just a delusion or joke or conspiracy.

Margaret Barker says that her whole method is to stand where the ancients stood, in hopes of being able to see what they saw. She recognizes that Biblical scholarship will go nowhere towards solving the current problems by relying on the methods that created the problems.

As Barbour says:

Faith does not automatically turn uncertainties into certainties. What it does is take us beyond the detached, speculative outlook which prevents the most significant sorts of experience; it enables us to live and act amid the uncertainties of life without pretensions of intellectual or moral infallibility. (Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science andReligion, 137.)

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 4, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Kerry A. Shirts]

SometimeSaint:

Why are you not helping those millions of sufferers?

Kerry:

I am actually. I won't present any evidence, you shall just have to take it on faith. You do take things people say on faith right?

SometimeSaint:

Would it really be all that good for God to step in and solve all our problems without any effort on our part?

Kerry:

I nowhere said this in any manner. I said what about all the NEEDLESS and UNNECESSARY suffering that continues throughout a lifetime? I no more advocate God solve all our problems than you do. What I want to know is, is God here EVER?

SometimeSaint:

Every single one of us is going to die. Every single one of us, except those that didn't keep their first estate, is going to be Resurrected. Where have we lost anything?

Kerry:

A productive and enjoyable life that COULD have been made vastly better had God cared to to show he cared at least a smidgin for crying out loud.

SometimeSaint:

Depends on what goal you are after. The purpose of the church is to make bad men good, and good men better.

Kerry:

Science does this, so the church has nothing on us there.

SometimeSaint:

We are not the problems we are presented with, but the choices we make to solve those problems.

Kerry:

Thank goodness science is choosing to make the choices to solve the problem of evil which God ignores through millenia of suffering eh?

SometimeSaint:

I have no desire for God to come in and solve all my problems for me. That was Lucifer's plan.

Kerry:

I don't have that desire either, I desire for God to back up the claim that he actually does care though.

SometimeSaint:

Wishful thinking? Not hardly. Was Jesus lying when he made his promise's.

Kerry:

How do we know when he does?

SometimeSaint:

Just depends on how you interpret those "facts".

Kerry:

Yes it does.....

SometimeSaint:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

Kerry:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something within me can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein-

[Robert F. Smith]

In other words, it is more than obvious to you that the argument is unassailable because it is factually true. You can't refute it, so, in good scholarly fashion you simply assert and pretend and hope no one else notices that you are bankrupt against the facts yes? In what way specifically can you, if at all, refute the obvious point in my post without worrying about how much I know or don't know. Scientific knowledge in the form of medicine has relieved the suffering of MILLIONS of poor people while God did exactly nothing to help alleviate their suffering, and he COULD have had he chose to. Can you refute this or not? Facts, evidence, you know the stuff scientific discoveries are made of that I obviously am too damn dense to comprehend while you know vastly more than I ever will. Put your knowledge to work and show me then which side alleviates more suffering here and now and go ahead and try to convince me of the implications, using the evidence. A hint, try to comprehend that wish fuliflling fantasies of faith is NOT evidence. I mean the real stuff in our real world.

We have on this Board described in detail the fact that science and technology (which you are unable to differentiate) have been used to murder millions. You don't care, because science has become your idolatrous god, and you have no interest in factual discussion. You are as religious about this as any member of Al Qaida or the Taliban in your veneration of death, and the falsehood you tell that science and technology have only done good through advanced medicine. If some religious person somewhere uses science and technology to help someone, you immediately bear false witness and say that only science did it. A balanced assessment would be fair, but you cannot accept that. Why?

Scientific discourse requires facts, and I read none of them from you here. I find only hate and intolerance. What happened, Kerry? You used to be a nice guy. Talking about science and technology when you haven't the foggiest idea what they are does not become you.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

We have on this Board described in detail the fact that science and technology (which you are unable to differentiate) have been used to murder millions. You don't care, because science has become your idolatrous god, and you have no interest in factual discussion. You are as religious about this as any member of Al Qaida or the Taliban in your veneration of death, and the falsehood you tell that science and technology have only done good through advanced medicine. If some religious person somewhere uses science and technology to help someone, you immediately bear false witness and say that only science did it. A balanced assessment would be fair, but you cannot accept that. Why?

Scientific discourse requires facts, and I read none of them from you here. I find only hate and intolerance. What happened, Kerry? You used to be a nice guy. Talking about science and technology when you haven't the foggiest idea what they are does not become you.

Yer right, I have gotten too edgy, sorry, I will back away from it. No more talking science for now.

[Tacenda]

Yer right, I have gotten too edgy, sorry, I will back away from it. No more talking science for now.

By George I think he's done it, Robert is the only one to have tamed you Kerry! I hope we, or just myself can see what I'm sure is so much more to your personality than this science only funk that has gotten you so mired in. Though I do understand the excitement of sharing it with others only to be disappointed in all their reactions to it.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

By George I think he's done it, Robert is the only one to have tamed you Kerry! I hope we, or just myself can see what I'm sure is so much more to your personality than this science only funk that has gotten you so mired in. Though I do understand the excitement of sharing it with others only to be disappointed in all their reactions to it.

[thesometimesaint]

SometimeSaint:

Why are you not helping those millions of sufferers?

Kerry:

I am actually. I won't present any evidence, you shall just have to take it on faith. You do take things people say on faith right?

Yes, until proven thaty they are not what is claimed.

SometimeSaint:

Would it really be all that good for God to step in and solve all our problems without any effort on our part?

Kerry:

I nowhere said this in any manner. I said what about all the NEEDLESS and UNNECESSARY suffering that continues throughout a lifetime? I no more advocate God solve all our problems than you do. What I want to know is, is God here EVER?

Who said it was NEEDLESS and UNNECESSARY? We are not the problem we are presented with but the solution we use to solve them.

SometimeSaint:

Every single one of us is going to die. Every single one of us, except those that didn't keep their first estate, is going to be Resurrected. Where have we lost anything?

Kerry:

A productive and enjoyable life that COULD have been made vastly better had God cared to to show he cared at least a smidgin for crying out loud.

He cares enough to allow us to to experience mortality with all of its problems. To know the bitter from the sweet. That we may become like him.

SometimeSaint:

Depends on what goal you are after. The purpose of the church is to make bad men good, and good men better.

Kerry:

Science does this, so the church has nothing on us there.

Science is incapable of doing that. What it does do is allow us more effective ways to be either.

SometimeSaint:

We are not the problems we are presented with, but the choices we make to solve those problems.

Kerry:

Thank goodness science is choosing to make the choices to solve the problem of evil which God ignores through millenia of suffering eh?

Science is incapable of doing that. The same science that produced the Atom Bomb makes nuclear medicine possible. It is not the science but the uses that it is put to that make the difference. Why didn't man use science through those millenia to end suffering?

SometimeSaint:

I have no desire for God to come in and solve all my problems for me. That was Lucifer's plan.

Kerry:

I don't have that desire either, I desire for God to back up the claim that he actually does care though.

He inspired men to care.

SometimeSaint:

Wishful thinking? Not hardly. Was Jesus lying when he made his promise's.

Kerry:

How do we know when he does?

Ask him.

SometimeSaint:

Just depends on how you interpret those "facts".

Kerry:

Yes it does.....

SometimeSaint:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

Kerry:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something within me can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein-

A personal God is not necessary to have a religion. The Buddhists have no personal God but I guarantee you they are religious.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

A personal God is not necessary to have a religion. The Buddhists have no personal God but I guarantee you they are religious.

Did you fail to see the part where if anything of a religious nature can be ascribed to him that it is due to science? Surely that must give you pause if you actually think your quote establishes Einstein felt both were 50% important. This is not even the situation. Einstein was an atheist not a religious man. Awe, wonder, adorement, etc., came because of science for Einstein. He properly respected it, not religion. He claimed Spinoza's god was the one he believed in, Spinoza was an atheist, and at best a deist.

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry A. Shirt:

While I personally believe God is the ultimate scientist I don't use science to describe God.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it, and I no problem at all with Einstein being correct about somethings and incorrect about others.

I never said Einstein was anything other than an Atheist. But I wouldn't hold that against him.

And Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and many more were Christian. Also take a look at the number of scientists that were/are LDS.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Kerry A. Shirt:

While I personally believe God is the ultimate scientist I don't use science to describe God.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it, and I no problem at all with Einstein being correct about somethings and incorrect about others.

I never said Einstein was anything other than an Atheist. But I wouldn't hold that against him.

And Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and many more were Christian. Also take a look at the number of scientists that were/are LDS.

I understand all this. I am just making sure you are not implying and making out of context uses of Einstein to further your incorrect (from my perspective) view of mixing science and religion. The assumption implying that Einstein actually felt there is something to God and religion. He clearly did not. I am just clarifying this is all.

[wenglund]

All very interesting and I appreciate the efforts, however, the fact is millions have suffered needlessly, and why is God only choosing just a very astonishingly few to help when in fact, assuming theology is correct, God really does love us and CARE about us, yet lets millions go by the wayside? This sincerely makes no sense anymore to me. I promise, I am not trying to be obtuse, but why so selective from God's end? Seriously? Let millions go while helping maybe an odd stray one here and there? It simply is impossible to make sense of. The problem of evil is the argument against all the theology concerning God ever invented or revealed.

The questions you posed, while wonderful brain teasers for our finite human minds, are quite dangerous for neophytes, the uncritically minded, and those not properly grounded, because these good folks may lack the wisdom to realize, among other things, that these questions are some of the stupidest means for determining whether God exists or not.

I mean, here we have profoundly arrogant humans with their relatively puny minds and remarkably limited perspective presuming to peer into the eternities, and if they don't get satisfactory answers to questions, particularly those that are well beyond the scope of their understanding, then God is to be dismissed. This makes as much sense as a two-year-old assuming his parents don't exist because the babysitter couldn't give him a satisfactory answer for why he has to go to bed a 8pm and his older brother gets to stay up until 9pm.

What makes this all the more stupid is that God, with his infinite understanding, has provided us with at viable means to know of his existence and to learn of him. But, noooo, some of us are way too smart for God. Why should we find out from God, himself, if he exists, when we have a couple of alleged brainiac humans that have supposedly figured out a couple of lame, indirect tests. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 5, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry A. Shirts:

I understand all this. I am just making sure you are not implying and making out of context uses of Einstein to further your incorrect (from my perspective) view of mixing science and religion. The assumption implying that Einstein actually felt there is something to God and religion. He clearly did not. I am just clarifying this is all.

Where have I said that Einstein was anything other than an Atheist? However for an Atheist to make statements about a God he doesn't believe is rather oxymoronic. The simple matter of fact that Einstein was Jewish enough for Hitler to want him killed.