Bradley And Hanks At Sunstone

[Calm]

I am pretty sure that Wade was using "the heart" as purely a metaphor for the emotional side of an individual.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I am pretty sure that Wade was using "the heart" as purely a metaphor for the emotional side of an individual.

I understand that, and that is precisely the way we need to get rid of. The heart has nothing to do with it, even as a metaphor it is silly. I am probably, to be sure, nit picking more than usual.....

[Tacenda]

Wade noted:

There is good reason why we have both a mind and a heart. Each provide their own wonderful perspectives. The mind offers us perception, conceptualization, and logic, whereas the heart offers us beauty and love. The mind offers us science, and the heart offers us art. Etc., etc.

Kerry responds:

This is simply false, and one reason why Stenger noted that so many of us are stuck in medieval thinking. In this case with the heart, this is the way outdated ancient thinking. We know the heart does ONE thing, pumps blood. This is literally undisputable. We also KNOW because of thousands and tens of thousands of experiments with MRI that EVERYTHING to do with emotions, feelings, thoughts, thinking, etc. is in the brain. This too is literally indisputable. They have NEVER found emotions in the heart, but have absolutely without one failure ALWAYS found where in the brain emotions come from through literally umpteen thousands of experiments. This, I would propose, is yet another area where religion has to back down from the pure power of scientific experiments and evidence that has been and is repeatable by any doctor competent to use MRI's on patients. Art is most definitely in our brains as are patterns, science, religion, God, feelings, hope, prayer, etc. Many thousands of neuroscientist and doctors have been putting together information for decades on this and their writings are beginning to be put in print. Once again, science is advancing our knowledge about us, while ancient thinking has kept us back with the pretended knowledge that our hearts produce art, emotions, and the spirit. None of this myth making fantasy has any credibility in reality in any manner.

I respectfully beg to differ. It's so interesting, I just had a conversation similar to the ones between you and others, with my younger brother, who is facing some scary stuff in the next few months because of his own doing, can't go into detail.

I told him to try and imagine that God might exist and be able to give over the great burden of his suffering. Well he laughed that off, and attributes everything to science. He decided long ago, there is no God and people are totally on their own. I've sometimes wondered the same thing but really hoped he could give some of the burden to Him or something, anything that would help. Even to our parents who have passed on. But he was having none of it.

Then I remembered a story I'd heard on t.v. about a heart donor transplant. And how the donor's personality traits transferred to the recipient. I told this to my brother, he'd never heard about it before. But I was trying to convince him, that there is a soul within us.

Tonight after reading the comments about the heart just pumping blood it reminded me of the conversation with my brother so I wanted to do a little googling to see if the same story popped up. Well, not just that story but dozens have. So I'm linking you to some, just to get some feedback if you have the time to read them.

http://www.dailymail...d-like-man.html

http://www.dailymail...human-soul.html

Edited August 1, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I understand that, and that is precisely the way we need to get rid of. The heart has nothing to do with it, even as a metaphor it is silly. I am probably, to be sure, nit picking more than usual.....

In this case, I think you are way too nitpicking.....and in fact, my response is "what in the world are you thinking?" I think it would be a great loss to poetry and literature if we got rid of all the metaphors that were scientifically incorrect. The beauty of the English language is anything can become a metaphor, there is no need to limit one's creativity of expression.

PS: I have English professors and poets in my family, you were lucky I didn't get up on a lecture box like one of them would have done.

Edited August 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Wade noted:

There is good reason why we have both a mind and a heart. Each provide their own wonderful perspectives. The mind offers us perception, conceptualization, and logic, whereas the heart offers us beauty and love. The mind offers us science, and the heart offers us art. Etc., etc.

Kerry responds:

This is simply false, and one reason why Stenger noted that so many of us are stuck in medieval thinking. In this case with the heart, this is the way outdated ancient thinking. We know the heart does ONE thing, pumps blood. This is literally undisputable. We also KNOW because of thousands and tens of thousands of experiments with MRI that EVERYTHING to do with emotions, feelings, thoughts, thinking, etc. is in the brain. This too is literally indisputable. They have NEVER found emotions in the heart, but have absolutely without one failure ALWAYS found where in the brain emotions come from through literally umpteen thousands of experiments. This, I would propose, is yet another area where religion has to back down from the pure power of scientific experiments and evidence that has been and is repeatable by any doctor competent to use MRI's on patients. Art is most definitely in our brains as are patterns, science, religion, God, feelings, hope, prayer, etc. Many thousands of neuroscientist and doctors have been putting together information for decades on this and their writings are beginning to be put in print. Once again, science is advancing our knowledge about us, while ancient thinking has kept us back with the pretended knowledge that our hearts produce art, emotions, and the spirit. None of this myth making fantasy has any credibility in reality in any manner.

I have seen a lot of overly-literalistic banality in my day, but your post has chartered new territory. Obviously, I was using the word "heart" to mean; "the center of emotion, especially as contrasted with the head as the center of intellect." (see the dictionary)

This is a perfectly legitimate, useful, and modern usage of the word. How it is that you did not know this, particularly while on your supposed quest for knowledge, is anyone guess. But, whatever the explanation, you seem to have completely missed my point.

If it is of any help, think of what I said in the scientific vernacular of left vs. right brains instead of head and heart.

Or, if that is still too figurative for your overly-literalistic mind, then in place of the word "heart" substitute the term "limbic system (particularly the amygdala)," then perhaps this will help you grasp what I said.

Please let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Wade noted:

your current messages comes across as warped in a sterile and myopic way.

Kerry:

Ah well, this is the same message the anti's gave me. Just shows ta go ya that there is no pleasing everyone - LOL! If finding evidence, looking for evidence using reason, logic, and careful scrutiny and analysis leads to myopia, then I am all for it. Faith gives us very little in comparison to solid good evidence. Until we understand that, we are all forever going to continue with our myopias Wade. I want to KNOW. I now understand more clearly than ever in my life that I have been told what to think my entire life, and I have simply followed that as if I knew it was true. Now I don't. No more wishy washy thinking and muddle headed evidenceless faith muddying waters, I want to KNOW. If God exists and wants me to know, as I am well aware we are told that it is important to think that God really does want us to know, so he will make sure we do if we are sincerely looking, then I am more than certain that he can and will show me the way. Until then, I have no choice but to go with the hard evidence right now. My faith in faith is quite frankly not working anymore. So I go with learning all I can with the same verve, desire, and energy. I am just finally rounding out my studies in other areas I have neglected. If that's O.K. with God, it's O.K. with me. If it ticks him off, then he's just gonna have to let me know. I honestly have no other choice and remain intellectually honest about what I really know. I know......I mean I now KNOW that I don't know anymore. Oh at one time I knew it all, I was more than certain, but, that was only because I myopically read ONLY the faith promoting apologetic materials. It's time for a lot more honesty in my search, a lot more analysis, and a whole lot more thinking instead of falling back on the lazy and easy way out of faith. I want to KNOW. That is why I am reading what I read, and writing and videoing what I am doing. It's a fantastically fascinating journey, without question. I don't accept anyone's else spirituality anymore. I don't accept anyone else's testimony and visions, dreams, or visitations. *I* want to KNOW. It's honestly that simple. If I cut through mushy thinking and flimsy conclusions based on lousy reasoning and silly faith due to ignorance, then so be it. Along the way, I might offend a few, but then again, no matter what I say, write, or video, I always end up offending someone somewhere, so, well, it's rather a daily expectation for me this late in the game after 20 years in apologetics. I am no longer defending, I am learning. I am no longer stuck with a single paradigm of fingers crossing faith hoping it all comes out in the wash. Now, it has to come out in the wash, and I am initiating it I suppose. But, with this one intent, with all my mind, I want to *KNOW*, it's that simple.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I have seen a lot of overly-literalistic banality in my day, but your post has chartered new territory. Obviously, I was using the word "heart" to mean; "the center of emotion, especially as contrasted with the head as the center of intellect." (see the dictionary)

This is a perfectly legitimate, useful, and modern usage of the word. How it is that you did not know this, particularly while on your supposed quest for knowledge, is anyone guess. But, whatever the explanation, you seem to have completely missed my point.

If it is of any help, think of what I said in the scientific vernacular of left vs. right brains instead of head and heart.

Or, if that is still too figurative for your overly-literalistic mind, then in place of the word "heart" substitute the term "limbic system (particularly the amygdala)," then perhaps this will help you grasp what I said.

Please let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand entirely, and I certainly know how others take this, just like my bishop asked when I told him recently that it's time I use my mind. The FIRST thing out of his mouth was what about what your heart tells you? So, I suspect you also had that in mind. In other words, don't go with brains, thinking, mind, go with faith, emotions, and fuzzy warm feelings. You fool me not mi amigo. No offense intended, but I want to KNOW what is real and not this mushy fuzzy faith, emotional heart kind of stuff anymore. I've had a lifetime of it, and now I need real and valid and accurate information in order to properly discriminate, learn, assess, and come to a knowledge....a KNOWLEDGE of the truth. This only comes with brains.

[Calm]

Scientifically speaking (I have a degree in psychology BTW and this is basic Psych 101), there is no real separation of emotion and thinking in a healthy brain. It all occurs at the same time. Separating the two is bad science and does not lead to greater knowledge in a practical sense, but usually psychological dysfunction.

Edited August 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

I understand entirely, and I certainly know how others take this, just like my bishop asked when I told him recently that it's time I use my mind. The FIRST thing out of his mouth was what about what your heart tells you? So, I suspect you also had that in mind. In other words, don't go with brains, thinking, mind, go with faith, emotions, and fuzzy warm feelings. You fool me not mi amigo. No offense intended, but I want to KNOW what is real and not this mushy fuzzy faith, emotional heart kind of stuff anymore. I've had a lifetime of it, and now I need real and valid and accurate information in order to properly discriminate, learn, assess, and come to a knowledge....a KNOWLEDGE of the truth. This only comes with brains.

Let's talk after you have walked a while by putting your faith solely in the arm of flesh. Yes, I will tell you I told you so and I will be sad when I say it. It is not necessarily a bad thing to learn lessons. Some learn by being told, "Don't touch, it is a hot stove." Others have to touch it, become blistered by the expereince yet learn to not touch a hot stove. Go for it; grab it with both hands and don't let go until the lesson is completely learned. It will be painful, but worth it.

[wenglund]

I understand entirely, and I certainly know how others take this, just like my bishop asked when I told him recently that it's time I use my mind. The FIRST thing out of his mouth was what about what your heart tells you? So, I suspect you also had that in mind. In other words, don't go with brains, thinking, mind, go with faith, emotions, and fuzzy warm feelings. You fool me not mi amigo.

Actually, had you used your brain as it was intended, my friend, you would know that this wasn't what I was suggesting, My point, and perhaps your bishop's as well, wasn't that you should stop using your brain and just go with your heart. It was to use both. You evidently opted against both. LOL

Not to put too fine a point on it, seemingly, by putting on your emotional and spiritual blinders, you may have ironically end up fooling yourself. By closing down the two important epistemic domains in your quest for greater knowledge and intelligence, you may have inadvertently dumbed yourself down, to the point that it made it difficult for you to correctly grasp my seemingly obvious comments. You may have, as Kevin Graham and others before you, provided scientific confirmation of the Novak affect.

No offense intended, but I want to KNOW what is real and not this mushy fuzzy faith, emotional heart kind of stuff anymore. I've had a lifetime of it, and now I need real and valid and accurate information in order to properly discriminate, learn, assess, and come to a knowledge....a KNOWLEDGE of the truth. This only comes with brains.

No offense taken (I can take gentle ribbing's as well as I can dish them out, and I trust that in your quest for knowledge, you haven't also jettisoned your sense of humor. In fact I am counting on it.)

Believe it or not, I get what you are saying. The epistemic domains of the "heart" and "spirit" can be quite challenging for some people, particularly those who are uncomfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, nuances, the complex and nebulous, etc., and who yearn for the seeming clarity and absolutes of the fundamentalist period of their epistemic development.

After all, the lens of emotions and faith, more than the intellect, can be quite messy, and is like looking through a glass darkly, and so it is somewhat understandable that certain people would opt just for something more clear.

Certainly, the road to full faith can be very challenging, and not everyone has the will or the stamina or the wherewithal to complete the journey--not all will endure to the end and continue to pass the tests of faith.

It is just that the messy, the mushy, the fuzzy, and so forth are unavoidable aspects of the maturation process--if nothing more than figuring out that we can't always do and have what we WANT (in part, because our wants may not always be feasible), and that it is best to do what is right and in our collective interest.

Part of growing up, as you may discover, is figuring out that the more we learn, the more complex and nuanced things become, and the more we realize how little we actually know and how little can be known for certain, and to become okay with this and even use it to our advantage.

I get that not everyone, including adults, are ready to mature in this way at this time, and as with many a teen, are want to rebel and to seek what they want and try to have things there way, and who may assume that they know better than their Father what is best, and think they know what they are doing and have it all figured out. This, too, is oft a part of growing up.

Free agency also allows for this.

And, while it may be difficult for some of us to watch loved-ones make what appear to us to be poor and self-destructive choices, our 11th Article of Faith obliges us to reserve to them that right.

And, so, as a brother who loves you, though who thinks you are making a big mistake and a huge step backwards, nevertheless I wish you all the best as you worship how, well, or what you may.

Going forward, I may vigorously challenge your public thoughts and actions, though not with the intent to destroy, but in hopes of mutually rescuing and building up and strengthening as brothers. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Scientifically speaking (I have a degree in psychology BTW and this is basic Psych 101), there is no real separation of emotion and thinking in a healthy brain. It all occurs at the same time. Separating the two is bad science and does not lead to greater knowledge in a practical sense, but usually psychological dysfunction.

James 1:5 ^aIf any of you lack ^bwisdom, let him ask of God, that ^cgiveth to all men liberally, and ^dupbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ^aask in ^bfaith, nothing ^cwavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A ^adouble minded man is unstable in all his ways.

[MAsh]

I now understand more clearly than ever in my life that I have been told what to think my entire life, and I have simply followed that as if I knew it was true.

I find this to be a very odd claim coming from you, Kerry. I've been thinking on my own since I was a young man. I'm really shocked to hear you make such a confession.

...I want to KNOW.

And you think this is scientifically possible? While I know some of your atheist authors make this claim or implication, it's certainly not held universally by all atheists.

If God exists and wants me to know, as I am well aware we are told that it is important to think that God really does want us to know, so he will make sure we do if we are sincerely looking, then I am more than certain that he can and will show me the way.

Agreed. Of course the "sincerely" is the operative word. Only you know if this is the case or not.

If it ticks him off, then he's just gonna have to let me know.

Comes down to sincerely listening. What do you think that entails? If you are trying to be open-mineded. If you reallly want to KNOW... then what measures do you need to take so that if God talks to you, you can hear Him?

but, that was only because I myopically read ONLY the faith promoting apologetic materials.

This is a shocking admission as well (perhaps simple hyperbole). You've read anti-Mormon literature I presume? That certainly couldn't be construed as "faith promoting." Now you are reading a completely different menu-- an atheistic menu-- and it seems that your current list of reading materials are myopic in the opposite direction. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I don't accept anyone's else spirituality anymore. I don't accept anyone else's testimony and visions, dreams, or visitations.

At some point everyone's personal faith is backed against the wall. The entire spiritual enterprise boils down to a one-on-one relationship. You cannot ride on anyone else's spiritual coat-tails. Nothing wrong with not accepting anyone else's spiritual experience. But if you believe that such things cannot happen, then you won't likely receive your own spiritual experience.

In other words, don't go with brains, thinking, mind, go with faith, emotions, and fuzzy warm feelings. You fool me not mi amigo.

But as you correctly note, emotions & fuzzy feelings come from the brain. As you must certainly know from your reading Kerry, it is not possible to completely separate the two. Your decisions, your preference for evidence, your interpretation of data, comes with emotional baggage from your brain. You are not able to make purely logical decisions. Emotion will always play a part in the process. Some of us are as well-versed as you regarding what the new atheist movement has written (some are less and some are more educated than you on these issues). Yet knowing the same information has not unseated our testimonies. It's a cop-out to say that it's because we cling to "emotions." Those who accept the atheistic movement also cling to "emotions." Some of us are able to reconcile the two without significant anomalies. Some of us have had spiritual experiences that reach far beyond fuzzy feelings (experiences that are not easily explained away are not likely to be shared on public message boards). Such experiences, of course, are not transferable so there is no reason to use them to try to convince someone else (as you note, you shouldn't automatically accept someone else's faith).

You write of thinking for yourself. But it's inescapable that you will accept the word of others (you haven't done the scientific experiments yourself, so you have to trust others who say they have and peer reviews that tell us the tests can be replicated). That's fine. I actually don't disagree with the results of such tests. As I've mentioned before (and again in this post) I think they can be logically incorporated into a paradigm that accepts God. But by denying that there is a possibility of supernatural communication, there is no test that you will oblige that will allow you to know of such a possibility.

Edited August 1, 2012 by MAsh

[KevinG]

Trading one form of fundamentalism for another is not learning to be open minded or enlightened.

[wenglund]

Comes down to sincerely listening. What do you think that entails? If you are trying to be open-mineded. If you reallly want to KNOW... then what measures do you need to take so that if God talks to you, you can hear Him?

Including, understanding that God often talks to us by way of messengers, human and otherwise. In fact, God may be talking to him by way of some of us via this very thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Let's talk after you have walked a while by putting your faith solely in the arm of flesh. Yes, I will tell you I told you so and I will be sad when I say it. It is not necessarily a bad thing to learn lessons. Some learn by being told, "Don't touch, it is a hot stove." Others have to touch it, become blistered by the expereince yet learn to not touch a hot stove. Go for it; grab it with both hands and don't let go until the lesson is completely learned. It will be painful, but worth it.

I already *have* been putting my faith solely in the arm of flesh, THAT is THE problem I have discovered. And yes, thank you for showing that it is through DOING, actual experimentation that we LEARN. That is precisely what I have been saying for a while now. Science works, BECAUSE we actually do grab with both hands and learn.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Mike Ash:

Comes down to sincerely listening. What do you think that entails? If you are trying to be open-mineded. If you reallly want to KNOW... then what measures do you need to take so that if God talks to you, you can hear Him?

Kerry:

I first have to find out if God is real. That is the logical first step. I know what others have claimed, so I believe it is possible for those experiences to happen to me, and it is going to take the truth. First things first, is there a God? All else flows from that answer depending on whether it is positive or negative. And I aim on finding out.

[wenglund]

First things first, is there a God? All else flows from that answer depending on whether it is positive or negative. And I aim on finding out.

You mean to say that after all this time you have yet to find this out?

Actually, in terms of the scientific method, you got it exactly backwards. The first step is an act of faith--i.e. construct an hypothesis based on preliminary background research (such as "God exists"). The second step is to do as MAsh suggest--i.e. formulate an appropriate test for your hypothesis (determine "what measures do you need to take so that if God talks to you, you can hear Him"), and then do the experiment. Afterwards, analyze your data. And, finally, draw your conclusions ("God exists")

Said another way, Moroni 10 and Alma 32 .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund

[MAsh]

I first have to find out if God is real. That is the logical first step.

This sounds a bit circular, Kerry. You claim that according to scientific advances we can now know that existence of God doesn't make sense, i.e., God doesn't exist. Yet you say you'll listen if God wants to tell you that you are on the wrong path but then claim you can't/won't listen until you know He exists.

[mrmandias]

I understand entirely, and I certainly know how others take this, just like my bishop asked when I told him recently that it's time I use my mind. The FIRST thing out of his mouth was what about what your heart tells you? So, I suspect you also had that in mind. In other words, don't go with brains, thinking, mind, go with faith, emotions, and fuzzy warm feelings. You fool me not mi amigo. No offense intended, but I want to KNOW what is real and not this mushy fuzzy faith, emotional heart kind of stuff anymore. I've had a lifetime of it, and now I need real and valid and accurate information in order to properly discriminate, learn, assess, and come to a knowledge....a KNOWLEDGE of the truth. This only comes with brains.

Scientifically there's no particular reason to think the limbic system has evolved to lie to you while the more analytic functions in the mind are liberating.

Your views about science and rationality are non-scientific.