Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[mfbukowski]

Brigham Young,

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.

“He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 70,

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]”

Bruce R. McConkie,

For those whose limited spiritual understanding precludes a recitation of all the facts, the revealed account, in figurative language, speaks of Eve being created from Adam's rib. (Moses 3:21-25.) A more express scripture, however, speaks of "Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed." (Moses 6:22. Italics added.) In a formal doctrinal pronouncement, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said that "all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner," and that the first of our race began life as the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. (See Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.) (From "Eve and the Fall," in Woman [1988] p. 60).

“Scant knowledge is available to us of Eve (the wife of Adam) and her achievements in pre-existence and in mortality. Without question she was like unto her mighty husband Adam in intelligence and in devotion to righteousness during both her first and second estates of existence. She was placed on earth in the same manner as was Adam, the Mosaic account of the Lord creating her from Adam's rib being merely figurative. (Moses 3:20-25.)” [From Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. [1966], p. 242]

John A. Widtsoe,

Symbolism. Naturally, the very essence of these fundamental truths is not known to man, nor indeed can be. We know things only so far as our senses permit. Whatever is known, is known through symbols. The letters on the written page are but symbols of mighty thoughts that are easily transferred from mind to mind by these symbols. Man lives under a great system of symbolism. Clearly, the mighty, eternal truths encompassing all that man is or may be, cannot be expressed literally, nor is there in the temple any attempt to do this. On the contrary, the great and wonderful temple service is one of mighty symbolism. By the use of symbols of speech, of action, of color, of form, the great truths connected with the story of man are made evident to the mind. (Rational Theology, 120)

The earthly ordinances of the Gospel are themselves only reflections of heavenly ordinances. For instance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple work are merely earthly symbols of realities that prevail throughout the universe; but, they are symbols of truths that must be recognized if the Great Plan is to be fulfilled. The acceptance of these earthly symbols is part and parcel of correct earth life, but being earthly symbols they are distinctly of the earth, and cannot be accepted elsewhere than on earth. [1915 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (“Work for the Dead,” UGHM, 6:33)]

Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed., xxix.

“The Mormon endowment… is frankly a model, a presentation in figurative terms. As such, it is flexible and adjustable; for example, it may be presented in more languages than one, and in more than one medium of communication. But since it does not attempt to be a picture of reality, but only a model or analogue to show how things work, setting forth the pattern of man’s life on earth with its fundamental whys and wherefores, it does not need to be changed or adapted greatly through the years; it is a remarkably stable model, which makes its comparison with other forms and traditions, including the more ancient ones, quite valid and instructive… Those who have been to the temple hundreds of times know that “age cannot wither… nor custom stale [its] infinite variety.” What [the] few bits of information [about parallels in other religions and cultures] do is to supply a new dimension to the experience, along with the assurance that a wealth of newly found records confirms the fundamental thesis of its antiquity and genuineness.”

Monumental set of quotes! Fantastic! Thanks!

And for those who think what I am saying is "not Mormonism" this Widtsoe quote bears underlining:

John A. Widtsoe,

Symbolism. Naturally, the very essence of these fundamental truths is not known to man, nor indeed can be. We know things only so far as our senses permit. Whatever is known, is known through symbols. The letters on the written page are but symbols of mighty thoughts that are easily transferred from mind to mind by these symbols. Man lives under a great system of symbolism. Clearly, the mighty, eternal truths encompassing all that man is or may be, cannot be expressed literally, nor is there in the temple any attempt to do this. On the contrary, the great and wonderful temple service is one of mighty symbolism. By the use of symbols of speech, of action, of color, of form, the great truths connected with the story of man are made evident to the mind. (Rational Theology, 120)

The earthly ordinances of the Gospel are themselves only reflections of heavenly ordinances. For instance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple work are merely earthly symbols of realities that prevail throughout the universe; but, they are symbols of truths that must be recognized if the Great Plan is to be fulfilled. The acceptance of these earthly symbols is part and parcel of correct earth life, but being earthly symbols they are distinctly of the earth, and cannot be accepted elsewhere than on earth. [1915 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (“Work for the Dead,” UGHM, 6:33)]

Edited August 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

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.

Kerry,

I understand very much your feelings. I have experienced things in life that are still extraordinarily painful for me. Our last child spent his whole life in the hospital from the time of his birth till his death 16 months later. So, I do know in some small degree about the pain and suffering of the innocent, perfect, lovely children of God. (See my wife's blog here: http://millermm.blogspot.com for more information about him. Please read the post I wrote about his last day with us. I wrote it in October 2011).

This is extremely personal and I'm not sure I can convey my feelings in a meaningful way. But I'm going to try because I admire you so much.

I know you love learning. You are probably the most inquisitive person I know. How do we learn?

We read books. We use media. We think and ponder. We experiment. We test our ideas. These are all true and excellent. However, the most important, I think, is that we experience.

Science is about the first set of learning. However, the most important learning can only be gained through experience. That's where religion and theology come in to place. It is better that to pass through sorrow that we might know the good from the evil. It is only through the heart-wrenching experiences of this life that we can learn what really matters and how to help others in time and eternity. For that is how Father gained his knowledge.

Shortly after my son passed away, I received a call from a friend. His father was acutely ill and would soon die. He called me looking for a listening ear and a consoling voice. I found myself for once saying and really feeling "I understand." If I had lived to be a million years old and not experienced the pain of losing my own child I would have never understood or been able to comfort him.

On the other side, I now treasure life more than ever. I love my other children more deeply. I have more empathy for others in need and do more to help them.

You see, this life is about experience.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking ("What good did your son get out of such suffering and death or the millions of hungry people in Africa?") I don't fully understand the answer to that. I do believe, and have hope, however, that such suffering will be more than compensated. I also believe that we have an obligation to reach out to others in need.

I have witnessed people reaching out in extraordinary and simple ways.

On July 1st, 2011, I boarded an emergency transportation plane with my son to be transported across the country to a different hospital for a bone marrow transplant. He was intubated, very sick, and it wasn't even clear whether he would make it to the hospital. My wife and other kids were left at home to pack and make the drive to join us in a few days. After arriving I stayed in the ICU room with him those first few days, sleeping on a chair. I was exhausted and couldn't really give him the support he needed to the extent I wished. I watched as the respiratory therapist came in and would sing beautiful, soft lullabies to him while holding his hand until he could calm down and rest. She was like a ministering angel to him and to me.

I saw hundreds such acts of love. I felt like I was standing on sacred, holy ground. If it weren't for Seth's tremendous suffering, those beautiful acts of service never could have been possible.

So, was his suffering needless? No. It blessed our lives! It continues to bless our lives! The question, in my mind, isn't "why doesn't God do something," but "what are we doing?"

God bless you, brother.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ahab:

I'm saying they [spirits] can be observed through science, or scientific methods. I'm not saying all scientists are seeing them.

Kerry:

And I am saying you are simply spouting off without any evidence whatsoever. IF science CAN do so, *HOW* do you know this? So far as I can understand, science has never, nor can observe spirits. There have been no spirits ever found or seen via science, and there are no tests to see if they are real. That's all I am saying.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

<p>

• Members
  
• 
  
• 1,661 posts
  

625]

Posted A day ago

Kerry A. Shirts, on 08 August 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Science, thanks to its advances, now certainly does have the ability to literally test the efficacy of prayer (

the actual tests that have been properly scientific have shown prayer fails miserably

, no surprise), and that said "spiritual feelings" certainly can now be tested scientifically.

CFR

Kerry notes:

Just for you Bob, both the Mayo Clinic as well as Duke University, and even now Harvard University "have engaged in studies on the efficacy of remote intercessory prayer." The largest prayer experiment called "The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer" (STEP) was performed by a collaboration of researchers for six academic medical centers, focusing on 1,802 patients recovering from coronary-artery bypass surgery in six hospitals. They were divided into 3 different groups. After the experiment "the investigators found no effect of intercessory prayer on the recovery of the patients examined. In fact, those patients who knew they were being prayed for fared worse!" These studies were performed and "were conducted with the highest scientific standards." (See Victor J. Stenger,

God and the Folly of Faith,

Prometheus Books, 2012: 226f, and the references in the footnotes). You're welcome.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Calm]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16569567

Another study: http://www.theheart.org/article/192509.do

In a surprising report in the October 25 [1999?] issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers led by William S Harris (St Luke's Hospital, Kansas City) found that patients admitted to the coronary care unit of the Mid America Heart Institute (MAHI) of St Luke's Hospital in Kansas City suffered fewer complications if a group of intercessors prayed for them daily (1).

Did Stenger deal with why these results were found?

And a critique: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3275584/

In IP studies, control over exposure to the agent is greatly limited. In the typical RCT, the investigator is the only source of the treatment agent. In IP studies, friends, family, and members of the patients’ religious congregations pray for the patients, over and above the prayers from the intercessors. Moreover, certain religious orders routinely pray for all the sick the world over. Thus, we can distinguish three types of prayer in these studies: (1) that directed specifically to the patient by the intercessors (IP) and under the control of the experimenter; (2) supplemental prayer (SP) directed to the patient specifically by family, friends, and others, unmeasurable and not controlled by the experimenter; and (3) background prayer directed generally to all the sick all over the world, similarly unmeasurable and uncontrolled.

The impact of background prayer may not be great. Assuming that prayer has quantitative dimensions (a big assumption), the amount of background prayer is enormous, but it also is spread over all the sick in the world and, therefore, the exposure of any one individual patient may be small. We focus on supplemental prayer....

Most of the scientific community may dismiss unilaterally the idea that distant IP can influence health. But in an era in which the most fundamental scientific theories about the evolutionary origins of life and the universe are under attack, such cavalier disregard can only allow beliefs in the effects of IP to persist. IP studies must be held to the standards of science: as long as investigators cannot control and measure exposure to prayer and identify specific outcome variables, these studies cannot be conclusive and should not be undertaken.

If they are conducted nonetheless, reviewers must evaluate their merits in light of the absence of these essential characteristics. Perhaps if the field develops and more precise hypotheses are tested and supported, a comprehensive theory will emerge. When this happens, we may indeed be on the threshold of the scientific revolution that IP proponents claim. But to truly achieve the status of revolutionary science, hypotheses about IP must derive from a theory that identifies the underlying mechanisms and allows for specific, testable, and falsifiable predictions. Based on the considerations raised in this paper, we think this is highly unlikely to occur.

Edited August 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I shall have to check CAL, thanks for the links and info! Hope all is well with you and the fam.....

(10 minutes later) - I looked at the link, and it appears to be the same study that Stenger was discussing. Also I know that John W. Loftus in his book "Why I Became an Atheist" described these experiments in quite good details. I would give you the page numbers, but I have it on Kindle, and I truly am not sure HOW to reference Kindle books.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Calm]

No problem. I don't have the money at the moment to buy them....spend every spare dime on grandkids these days.

[supersnail]

"You may go to some people here, and ask what ails them, and they answer, "I don't know, but we feel a dreadful distress in the stomach and in the back; we feel all out of order, and we wish you to lay hands upon us." "Have you used any remedies?" "No. We wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed." That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and to ask my Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, to sanctify that application to the healing of my body; to another this may appear inconsistent." (http://scripturesbet...?vol=04&disc=05)

Even if Mormonism claimed prayer efficacy could be scientifically established, and even if there were a prayer efficacy study that produced a significant difference for LDS prayer--which is what is relevant to the topic, not prayer in general--and somehow took into account what the LDS Church teaches about how to pray and how prayers are answered, critics could just say there is a "scientific explanation" not involving God and change the subject to something else supposedly requiring scientific proof to believe. Likewise, a lack of statistical significance could also be explained in various ways.

Edited August 12, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

To preface the below, I'm trying not to contribute to this thread becoming a typical atheism thread, so I'd like to encourage those who have issues with macroevolution or human speciation to respond.

Evolutionary theory is not just about Homo sapiens sapiens, and nor was it derived from an assumption that H. sapiens evolved from another species, or constructed in the course of investigating a hypothesis about human origins. Science is not just the sum of its inherently tentative consensus findings about particular things. Geneticists, animal breeders and environmental scientists are able to use evolutionary ideas perfectly well without believing that H. sapiens evolved from another species without God. In the first place, the idea that we probably evolved from Homo heidelbergensis is not even equivalent to a finding that the evolution took place without God, and the fact that some atheists are unable to just admit this straight up is telling. There may be a lingering idea that God's influence can be ruled out by appealing to philosophical materialism, though Mormonism says that everything is matter of one kind or another and thus the materialist objection loses its force. The strained attempts to associate Catholicism and Mormonism with creation science and Young Earth creationism just go to show that the claim that Mormonism is incompatible with science also relies on a false portrayal of Mormonism and even Christianity in general.

Now, personally, I don't believe in Young Earth creationism, even as a non-scientific proposition. If I wanted to, I could throw certain Young Earth creationists under the bus by making a good argument that they are idolaters for making salvation dependent on belief in Young Earth creationism. And I would agree that creation science can lead to conflict. However, I maintain that the mere assertion of an admittedly faith-based belief in a young Earth is not incompatible with science, because the belief is utterly lacking in any theoretical or evidentiary content. At most, it is a mere hypothesis without any theory or data put forward in itself. A belief that is upheld as an undisguised matter of faith does not have to lead to excluding biological or geological theories or findings in the fields of biology and geology. The mere existence of claims (by both atheists and certain creationists) that some aspects of creation conflict with evolution does not mean that they actually do conflict.

In fact, there is a phenomenon of Young Earth creationists walking around who are also geologists, paleontologists, etc., but not necessarily creation scientists, and they carry out conceptually and methodologically correct research in their respective fields despite their reported religious beliefs. Instead of insinuating that they have a mental illness or are being dishonest, we should deal with this seriously and consider how it could be possible that even those religious beliefs are compatible with science. As we all agree, scientific findings are always tentative and science is an activity among others. When we look at science in terms of being an activity, it's clearer that what non-scientists and even scientists believe religiously does not have to influence that activity, and when it seems to, it is often because of a mistaken view of belief as requiring scientific support.

Nobody is claiming a consensus that the earth is under 10,000 years old--that is not what is at issue here--but mere belief in that isn't a science proposal in the first place unless it is made into a research question. Discussion of religion and science may have more to do with trying to get people to believe that their beliefs are in conflict with science, or others to believe that, than with what is actually going on.

Regarding scientific apologetics, scientific apologetics is appropriate in contexts where skeptics are already emphasizing scientific criteria as the test of beliefs. It does not attempt to demonstrate necessarily that Mormon doctrines and scripture are more scientifically plausible than others. For example, when it is claimed that the mention of "horses," not particularly theologically important, in the Book of Mormon conflicts with science, some Mormons point out evidence and issues that perhaps have not been considered and pose complications, but that is not necessarily to say that the existence of Equus ferus caballus in Mesoamerica some thousands of years ago is comparatively highly plausible. The goal may just be to provide an opening for a return to belief, not communicate a definitive conclusion about plausibility. And at no time is it required that the faltering believer abandon accepted scientific theories related to horses. Some explanations, attempting to resolve the issue, do not even argue about the presence of horses, but point out naming and translation issues. Though the explanations are based on research, the claim is not that the Book of Mormon is proved by science, but that the so-called scientific objection is erroneously framed.

I would agree that scientism does seem to influence some individual Mormons. It, and an unnecessary emphasis on apologetics, may be a reflection of a surrounding culture as much as anything else. (Not saying that apologetics is unnecessary, but some may allow it to overly captivate their attention.) Is a person on the street in Honduras going to care about the horses issue? I'm not sure. We are here writing and reading in English on the Internet, and apologetics is a big part of discussions on the Internet, but what's going on in apologetics doesn't necessarily represent how the majority of Mormons sustain their belief. In theory, you could look at a board like this one and get the completely wrong impression. There is bound to be more apologetic material on a board that is intended for "dialogue."

Edited August 12, 2012 by supersnail

[volgadon]

"You may go to some people here, and ask what ails them, and they answer, "I don't know, but we feel a dreadful distress in the stomach and in the back; we feel all out of order, and we wish you to lay hands upon us." "Have you used any remedies?" "No. We wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed." That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and to ask my Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, to sanctify that application to the healing of my body; to another this may appear inconsistent." (http://scripturesbet...?vol=04&disc=05)

Even if Mormonism claimed prayer efficacy could be scientifically established, and even if there were a prayer efficacy study that produced a significant difference for LDS prayer--which is what is relevant to the topic, not prayer in general--and somehow took into account what the LDS Church teaches about how to pray and how prayers are answered, critics could just say there is a "scientific explanation" not involving God and change the subject to something else supposedly requiring scientific proof to believe. Likewise, a lack of statistical significance could also be explained in various ways.

Thank you, I was looking for that quote the other week.

[volgadon]

I would give you the page numbers, but I have it on Kindle, and I truly am not sure HOW to reference Kindle books.

We are in the same boat.

[mfbukowski]

We are in the same boat.

I have Kindle on my PC- and you can copy small sections from the text and paste them into a word processor and it automatically creates the quote for you as I recall. It's been a while since I have done it.

But just download a free Kindle app and load your book onto your pc Kindle and I think if you play with it a bit it can be done. But the quotes have to be quite brief as I recall.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

We are in the same boat.

I truly wish they had found a way to put in the actual page numbers of the books they are Kindling......it's is just VERY annoying and difficult. HOWEVER, ya gotta LOVE the cheaper prices!

[Robert F. Smith]

I truly wish they had found a way to put in the actual page numbers of the books they are Kindling......it's is just VERY annoying and difficult. HOWEVER, ya gotta LOVE the cheaper prices!

Kindle doesn't use page numbers, Kerry.

At page bottom there is always a location by line number together with the total line numbers of a book, so that you instantly know what percentage of a book you have read.

You can establish the exact location of a line or quote buy clicking on it and highlighting it as you would do in any text, and you can add a note -- to do that, go to the far left column, just below the search function, and click on the Notes & Marks icon. It will display all your highlights and notes, withe the exact line location. That is the proper way to cite a kindle book so that anyone else can find the quote of interest.

[Robert F. Smith]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 08 August 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Science, thanks to its advances, now certainly does have the ability to literally test the efficacy of prayer (

the actual tests that have been properly scientific have shown prayer fails miserably

, no surprise), and that said "spiritual feelings" certainly can now be tested scientifically.

CFR

Kerry notes:

Just for you Bob, both the Mayo Clinic as well as Duke University, and even now Harvard University "have engaged in studies on the efficacy of remote intercessory prayer." The largest prayer experiment called "The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer" (STEP) was performed by a collaboration of researchers for six academic medical centers, focusing on 1,802 patients recovering from coronary-artery bypass surgery in six hospitals. They were divided into 3 different groups. After the experiment "the investigators found no effect of intercessory prayer on the recovery of the patients examined. In fact, those patients who knew they were being prayed for fared worse!" These studies were performed and "were conducted with the highest scientific standards." (See Victor J. Stenger,

God and the Folly of Faith,

Prometheus Books, 2012: 226f, and the references in the footnotes). You're welcome.

I don't give any credence to the anti-religious frothings from Prometheus Books, a company whose purpose is not truth but the disestablishment of religion in general.

As for the studies you mention, I am very dubious of the practice in STEP of informing patients that they are or might be the subjects of intercessory prayer. I prefer double-blind studies on all such phenomena, and (contrary to your and Stenger's conclusions) we ought to be aware that the results in all such studies are so small a percentage pro or con, that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn..

A thorough discussion and a good summary of such studies is available in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer ,

". . . broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect.. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that "There is no scientifically discernable effect for intercessory prayer as assessed in controlled studies".

[2]

However, a 2007 systemic review of 17 intercessory prayer studies found "small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer" in 7 studies, but "prayer was unassociated with positive improvement in the condition of client" in the other 10, concluding that based upon the

American Psychology Association

's Division 12 (

clinical psychology

) criteria for evidence-based practice, intercessory prayer "must be classified as an experimental intervention." The review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.

[3]

"

These studies were generic and badly designed. None actually looked for example at the typical prayer list used on the Sabbath at a random selection of Jewish synagogues, or at a random selection of people contained in the prayer roll at a Mormon temple, or at those people specifically blessed by a rabbi, or by Mormon elders, or by South Carolina snake handlers, etc. Indeed, the entirely subjective element in such cases might make it impossible even to design an adequate scientific study.

It might be far more meaningful to engage in more tradiitonally scientific inquiries into archeology, linguistics, textual and literary analyses, etc., and to employ objective standards of evaluation.

[Kevin Christensen]

Concerning Prometheus Books,

The old story of the lost keys illustrates a clear and present danger:

Walking home on a dark night, a merchant sees his friend on his hands and knees, searching frantically in the pool of light under a street lamp. "What's wrong?" the merchant asks.

"I've lost my keys! Will you help me look for them?"

"Certainly, my friend. Where did you drop them?"

"Somewhere over there."

"Why are you looking here then?"

"Because the light is better."

How, I wonder, do their experiments account for diversities of gifts, such as "the faith to be healed" or that some prayers may be answered with "no", or with comfort, or the numerous other ways prayers are answered. I've found that people who honestly strive to live their faith (whether LDS or not) have no need to ask Prometheus books whether or not prayers are answered. Or even whether or not God lives and cares. It's much easier to get answers by means of personal experiments than delegated ones.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 14, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

I know that some here won't get this but let me point out the paradox of the whole notion of the "placebo effect"

When testing medication for example, some members of the sampling group are given a "placebo" which is some kind of inert material which is specifically intended to NOT have any known effect on the body so that the true effects of the medication can be tested. Yet many of those who receive the placebos have beneficial effects even from a medication which is not supposed to work. This is usually ascribed to "psychosomatic", undefined effects.

The reality is that it appears that these individuals were somehow, in an unknown way, cured through some kind of unknown phenomena.

It could be "psychosomatic" (a word which really explains nothing) effects, it could be God, it could be prayer, it could be a miracle for all that science can do to explain it.

But of course science disregards this strange effect as "the placebo effect" which is about as poor an explanation as one can dream up. No one really knows why this happens, but if science can't explain it, it is swept under the rug as "the placebo effect"

It is a perfect virtus dormitiva- it explains nothing but sounds very scientific because it has cool name. It is a NAMED and allegedly defined phenomenon because scientists say so.

[thesometimesaint]

We are all idiosyncratic in one way or another.

[Calm]

Indeed, the entirely subjective element in such cases might make it impossible even to design an adequate scientific study.

So many uncontrolled variables in these tests that it makes me cringe....even the critique made assumptions that were uncalled for, imo.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

I'm saying they [spirits] can be observed through science, or scientific methods. I'm not saying all scientists are seeing them.

Kerry:

And I am saying you are simply spouting off without any evidence whatsoever. IF science CAN do so, *HOW* do you know this?

By knowing what the scientific methods of discovery are and while knowing for myself that spirits are real and therefore observable.

So far as I can understand, science has never, nor can observe spirits.

Science is not a person, so try focusing on how they may possibly be observed by using scientific methods. That would be by using what can be observed through the 5 senses, and then once you've observed them that way, by analyzing what has been observed.

There have been no spirits ever found or seen via science, and there are no tests to see if they are real. That's all I am saying.

Contrary to what you are saying, spirits have been observed through scientific methods and those cases have been well documented and repeated throughout time. The trouble is that you can't just have one appear to you whenever you want, because the spirits are persons who can avoid you if they want to, but that doesn't mean they can't be observed if and when they show themselves. How about at least using some common sense by thinking they may be real, even though you haven't seen any yet. That way you won't look like such an idiot if you ever see one and know that it is what it is. Edited August 13, 2012 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

One person alone can not establish science. A disinterested third party is needed to do that.

I guess if you consider "Ghost Busters" to be science.

Edited August 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I was just going to say so Ahab thinks he himself can accept and establish science as showing spirits exist, but science is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. UNTIL it is demonstrated that OTHERS can also, using scientific methods, this is simply a testimony meeting, not science. Science doesn't care about your personal belief, it wants objective, viable, testable ideas and conclusions based on evidence, not testimony that one believes in ghosts. Spirits/ghosts, both are the same thing, and I guarantee you you CANNOT find legitimate science which says ghosts are real. Just go ahead and show us where to find the evidence.

[volgadon]

but science is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

That simply isn't true.

[cinepro]

But of course science disregards this strange effect as "the placebo effect" which is about as poor an explanation as one can dream up. No one really knows why this happens, but if science can't explain it, it is swept under the rug as "the placebo effect"

It is a perfect virtus dormitiva- it explains nothing but sounds very scientific because it has cool name. It is a NAMED and allegedly defined phenomenon because scientists say so.

Science doesn't disregard the placebo effect. In fact, science has studied it quite a bit. It just hasn't made much headway in figuring it out.

[mfbukowski]

I officially give up.