Enslaved By Science

[supersnail]

A little bit of scientism may not hurt the overall faith of someone who has been LDS for decades or was born into the church. Scientism would not be a good starting point for an agnostic who is interested in learning about Mormonism or anyone who already has great appreciation for and knowledge of science.

That's basically what I was saying. It's more of a side comment, not meant to change anyone's personal beliefs about evolution. Maybe it's not even controversial.

Despite its limitations that others and I have addressed in this thread and other threads, the Non-overlapping Magisteria view that science and religion are different domains is reasonable, even in cases where there appears to be some crossover. Young Earth creationists who don't try to justify their Young Earth creation beliefs using science will be fine.

I have great respect for people who can say, "Our knowledge is nothing compared with what God knows, but I fully admit that these faith-based beliefs of mine are not supported by science. Though I stand by my beliefs, I will not get in the way of geologists, biologists etc. doing what they do best. I do not need to use science to validate beliefs that I was supposed to be accepting on faith anyway. Faith is meant to be challenged by our experiences and observations. God never promised that faith would come easily to everyone. I do not expect others to accept my beliefs on a scientific basis. It bothers me that others seem to put on a show of being smarter than creationists and try to pit scientists against scientists and non-scientists with various faith-based beliefs, but I will not give in to the temptation to join in the idolization of science. I appreciate science, but I will not make it my master. Science was given to us to use in faith and obeying God's commandments."

[mfbukowski]

Despite its limitations that others and I have addressed in this thread and other threads, the Non-overlapping Magisteria view that science and religion are different domains is reasonable, even in cases where there appears to be some crossover. Young Earth creationists who don't try to justify their Young Earth creation beliefs using science will be fine.

I know. I have been telling them that, but they tend to think I am a bad guy.

[thesometimesaint]

IMNTBHO anyone whom worships at the alter of science is an idolater, and any whom dismisses science should try to live without it.

[mfbukowski]

I know. I have been telling them that, but they tend to think I am a bad guy.

Just as a follow up on my own quote here- what I am trying to show here is that there are many many ways of seeing the gospel as true and many different angles and possible perspectives. What I am really against is people who think "such and such is the truth, so the gospel is wrong", or on the other side "the gospel is true, so such and such must be false".

I think that sometimes people must misunderstand that and think that I am liberal or conservative or just plain weird and they are probably all right! I see myself as a philosophical therapist in a lot of ways, trying to clear up confusion in the way we speak of gospel topics and just want to point out that there are multiple ways of seeing these issues.

The bottom line is that when we have a testimony of some principle we need to understand that God teaches us all individually and the fact that the next guy understands it differently doesn't mean he is some kind of enemy, and that even though we might think that our view is totally incompatible with his view, after a little discussion we might find that we actually agree on the substance and that the rest comes from our individual experiences in this world making altering out particular perceptions of issues.

In the long run, we just need to understand that we are all on the same road, each of us doing the best we can in our own ways, and that God loves us and is trying to get some of these principles through our thick skulls so we can get back to him. That's what it's all about.

[ERayR]

Just as a follow up on my own quote here- what I am trying to show here is that there are many many ways of seeing the gospel as true and many different angles and possible perspectives. What I am really against is people who think "such and such is the truth, so the gospel is wrong", or on the other side "the gospel is true, so such and such must be false".

I think that sometimes people must misunderstand that and think that I am liberal or conservative or just plain weird and they are probably all right! I see myself as a philosophical therapist in a lot of ways, trying to clear up confusion in the way we speak of gospel topics and just want to point out that there are multiple ways of seeing these issues.

The bottom line is that when we have a testimony of some principle we need to understand that God teaches us all individually and the fact that the next guy understands it differently doesn't mean he is some kind of enemy, and that even though we might think that our view is totally incompatible with his view, after a little discussion we might find that we actually agree on the substance and that the rest comes from our individual experiences in this world making altering out particular perceptions of issues.

In the long run, we just need to understand that we are all on the same road, each of us doing the best we can in our own ways, and that God loves us and is trying to get some of these principles through our thick skulls so we can get back to him. That's what it's all about.

I vote for weird. But then there are those that consider me weird too. .

[mfbukowski]

I vote for weird. But then there are those that consider me weird too. .

You should ask my wife if I am weird.

On second thought, don't.

Edited August 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[supersnail]

The gist or point is that objections to the ToE seem to be foisted upon the random search part of evolution as though that would preclude God from using such a process. The results are not the result of the random search but of the filter through which the results are passed. Indeed a directed search rather than a random search would potentially miss the most beneficial outcomes and would require that the most beneficial results were known beforehand which would make a search superfluous to begin with.

The ScienceDaily article about the computer simulation would be more relevant if someone were making an argument like irreducible complexity. Otherwise, the whole issue of the evolution of the eye is arguably moot because of historical contingency. Who cares about an eye when human evolution as a whole is improbable, which it is unless you are taking an extremist position on convergence or directionality. I'm not saying that it is so improbable that it couldn't have happened, but rather that the improbability suggests opportunities for divine causation/intervention.

The objection that some creationists (to clarify, I have been using the word "creationist" broadly and without the connotation of so-called Christian fundamentalism) have about the so-called randomness of evolution is that it precludes divine purpose. I don't think what most of them have in mind is that a deterministic or stochastic process would be more compatible with that purpose. Pointing out that natural selection is non-random has limited relevance, because those creationists believe that evolution precludes external purpose and describing a non-random mechanism of evolution doesn't really clarify how God could have an influence. Also, neither the random nor the non-random aspects of evolution preclude God's influence at an initial stage, or intervention.

Nor do they prove that influence or intervention. However, the random aspects of evolution leave open the possibility of an additional kind of intervention. For example, we can imagine God causing instances of what Gould called "decimation." Even if the specific results are unintended and unforeseeable, some causes of decimation may only appear unintended, and it may not be possible to investigate them fully in the first place. How would we study what caused an asteroid to hit the earth 250 million years ago?

Most creationists aren't LDS and aren't comfortable with this idea of God using and cooperating with evolutionary mechanisms. Though it is not proof of God's role in the origin of humans, the improbability of human evolution is another indication that God's intervention can be compatible with evolutionary theory. The actual randomness of our existence as a species (as opposed to the mythical randomness of evolution that presupposes no purpose, based on a misunderstanding of evolution), apparent in the context of numerous possible evolutionary outcomes that weren't realized, is no reason to believe that evolution is incompatible with God's intervention.

Can I be the creator of a garden even though all I do is choose what to plant in that garden? Can God be the creator of life even though that may simply consist of Him running the evolutionary process and selecting the desired outcome?

Yes and yes. I just think we should avoid unintentionally giving the impression that a long stretch of evolution could be repeated.

Edited August 31, 2012 by supersnail

[shalamabobbi]

Human evolution as a whole is improbable

If I have a deck of cards and deal them out onto a table and take note of the order I can say that it is very improbable that that would occur. And yet it just did. So the issue is one of intentional design. Since the standard scientific theory does not admit God into the mix it is not burdened with the improbable outcome of humans it merely says humans are here, the fossil record supports this long gradual development, the genome with its complexity can be reached in the time allotted at the observed measured rate of change in the DNA from one generation to the next, etc. Humans are not the goal they are one of the results of the process that occurred.

So the "improbability suggests opportunities for divine causation/intervention" only applies if one's faith rests upon the need for such intervention in the first place. I'll get back to this point.

Most creationists aren't LDS and aren't comfortable with this idea of God using and cooperating with evolutionary mechanisms.

A lot of LDS aren't either. Take note of posters like BlackStrap, ANACO, ERayR, etc. This isn't confined to any particular religion although the Catholics may be in the lead in accepting the theory as a church.

I just had a problem with the impression given unintentionally that a long stretch of evolution could be repeated

Well before this can be satisfactorily addressed there needs to be computers capable of handling the complexity of such a repeated computation. I am not sure how the data could even be entered in any reasonable length of time. Because chemistry has constraints I think the possibility exists that the evolutionary experiment could repeat. All indications of what we can program to date seem to be compatible with this. However that is just my personal gut opinion. The steps might certainly differ in each run but since each improvement is kept by an evolutionary process all one has to accept is the convergence to the human body as an optimal form for repetition to occur. If some other form is better why didn't it get selected for in the first place?

So back to the "improbability suggests opportunities for divine causation/intervention". Certainly there is no way to determine whether or not God intervened given that one accepts the existence of God. But now if the goal is the human form then His intervention becomes necessary as the odds are against a particular outcome as you've noted (unless repetition is the norm w/o any intervention).

As to divine purpose as a LDS I accept a pre-mortal existence of a part of my being. I believe that intelligence is a primitive that simply exists. God did not make it and in fact cannot make it. But we can be clothed upon with matter and inhabit these tabernacles of flesh. So purpose is still there for me irrespective of whether or not the human body arises without intervention on God's part. The purpose becomes acquiring a body and living the gospel standards in this life to prove worthy of acceptance by God in the next.

I don't worry about objections that "the sky isn't blue because the scriptures say it's purple". I accept the evidence that evolution occurred as the coherent testimony of all the data combined. I accept the church based upon personal experiences that can't be explained away.

I'm not sure if this answers your post or not as it seemed to be contemplative to me.

I'll add here that other LDS believe that man is the direct offspring of God in the body as well as in the spirit. That Adam was (another) son of God born into a condition of immortality from which he chose to fall so as to become capable of reproducing and providing bodies for the rest of us. Jesus' status as the "only begotten" in such a viewpoint becomes "the only begotten in the flesh" where flesh refers to a condition of mortality. That is the belief that I also held for many years (influenced by the writings of J F Smith and Bruce R McConkie) but abandoned when the evidence for evolution became overwhelming.

[supersnail]

shalamabobbi:

Thank you for your extended reply. I had a response, but I'm going to set it aside because I may have misunderstood some things. I just have a couple of questions.

Did you think I was making an argument from improbability that God actually intervened in evolution?

Are you aware of Simon Conway Morris' work, and is there a reason why you seem to prefer views like his (as far as convergence is concerned)?

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi:

Thank you for your extended reply. I had a response, but I'm going to set it aside because I may have misunderstood some things. I just have a couple of questions.

Did you think I was making an argument from improbability that God actually intervened in evolution?

Are you aware of Simon Conway Morris' work, and is there a reason why you seem to prefer views like his (as far as convergence is concerned)?

I could not tell from your post what exactly you believed or whether you were simply observing what others believed.

I am not a biologist. My degree is in nuclear physics. I am aware of course of the Cambrian explosion but I hadn't had his name attached to that.

Convergence is a pretty basic concept within the ToE and the idea of the experiment repeating itself occurred to me upon studying and coming to understand how it worked and then running computer simulations and looking at others' computer simulations and noticing that repeating the simulation resulted in very similar outcomes.

At first the idea seemed counter intuitive since the search is random but it simplifies when you remember that each improvement is tenaciously held onto. That limits the search space in a very significant manner. Especially initially when it is easiest to improve upon what you have.

[supersnail]

I could not tell from your post what exactly you believed or whether you were simply observing what others believed.

The topic of this thread has to do with whether faith-based beliefs should be abandoned/revised just because they aren't supported by current scientific theories and data. In principle, an atheist could agree with what I'm saying about evolution as not precluding what has been called "external teleology" -- in fact, I think most atheist and agnostic scientists would agree, though they may consider such teleology, particularly of a divine kind, to be outside the scope of science and therefore uninteresting to them, or at least outside the scope of biology -- so my own particular faith-based beliefs and what I think about how God used or did not use evolution is not really relevant.

In fact, I don't claim to know, and I don't know, whether a certain kind of intervention by God with respect to evolution actually took place. I'm just talking about that which is within the realm of possibility. It may seem contemplative, but it is important when considering how various faith-based beliefs need not come into conflict with science. Yes, atheists can mock what I'm saying as contemplating flying pink elephants, but that is to miss the point.

Others are more concerned with what is within the realm of certainty. So, yes, some LDS individuals on this board do emphasize what scripture says about the origin of the human family, but to the exclusion of evolution, while others seem to assume that science already shows that God's intervention was not needed because human evolution is supposedly inevitable on the basis of evolution playing out on its own according to internal laws. What these two contrasting positions may have in common is a misunderstanding of evolution as leading to humans. Thus, it is important to understand what the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould meant when he wrote that "Homo sapiens is an entity, not a tendency" (Wonderful Life). Gould clearly was not writing as some kind of creationist, but the idea that humans are not the theme of evolution -- but that humans scientifically speaking are just one possible result along with millions of other, concurrently existing species -- is something that both Christians and atheists could benefit from understanding. Humans are not only not a goal of evolution. Evolution does not lead to humans even as an unintended result.

To be clear, evolution is not itself purpose-driven, but it does not preclude purposeful intervention by an entity more powerful than us. This is even clearer when we consider that the Star Trek fantasy of the independent evolution of humans on different planets without God, or even the repeatability of human evolution on earth, is at present just that: a fantasy. Does this prove that God does intervene in/with evolution? No, I would agree it doesn't. As you point out, though, if humans are a desired result, God may have to intervene. Obviously, you are right that the necessity of humans is a faith-based belief.

So, to say that human evolution is improbable is not to say that science cannot account for it. It can, but the improbability leaves room for God's intervention -- without making such intervention necessary or even probable. What I'm saying is not as ambitious as trying to prove a religious doctrine by using Gould's theories, and I have rejected such a project.

Do I believe in as-yet-unknown natural laws that aren't described by current scientific theories? Yes, but I'm not sure why some insist on calling this a belief in the "magical" or the "supernatural" or lumping this with creation science. Just recognizing the possibility that God can intervene without violating known natural laws has nothing to do with creation science.

Regarding convergence, since you are not necessarily claiming that evolution actually does lead to humans or even human-like species, I won't belabor the point and would invite readers to explore these topics themselves. However, the idea that evolution does have such an end result is viewed by some Christians as evidence of design manifest in nature. That's why I asked for clarification about whether you held a strong convergence view and why. What I am arguing in contrast is that we do not need to see evidence in nature of God's intervention to hold a belief that God did intervene, because that belief can be based simply on faith without contradicting any point of evolution as a theory.

A Christian could argue that hypothetical inevitable human evolution is proof of God's influence or design, but that would reinforce an anthropocentric understanding of evolution and lead to Christians rejecting evolution because they cannot see an opportunity for God to have a role. It may seem paradoxical, but the more anthropocentric we make evolution, the less breathing room we give to creationists.

If we consider the Roman Catholic position, the idea that God's role may be limited to just inserting the soul may seem untouchable. However, if people claim or imply that the human mind is an inevitable result of evolution, even Catholics will feel discomfort. In fact, as modern as the Catholic position is, atheist biologist Richard Dawkins (who oddly finds himself in the same camp as Simon Conway Morris in critiquing Gould's emphasis on historical contingency) has criticized the Catholic position on exactly this point.

The idea that God can work with uncreated matter that is not originally organized for his purpose is, I think, an attractive alternative (for various reasons) and one that is particularly found in Mormonism. So, perhaps humans would probably not have been a result of descent with modification through the mechanisms we know about, but because of God's active involvement, a situation in which humans could exist, thrive and exercise agency was ensured to come about. This does not deny that humans could be a result of descent with modification without a powerful being.

Edited September 1, 2012 by supersnail

[shalamabobbi]

The topic of this thread has to do with whether faith-based beliefs should be abandoned/revised just because they aren't supported by current scientific theories and data. In principle, an atheist could agree with what I'm saying about evo... ... This does not deny that humans could be a result of descent with modification without a powerful being.

I would certainly agree with this. The reason I like to mention the idea that belief in God is possible if evolution is unguided is because some see this as a reason to dump their faith. There seems no point to me to base my faith upon a particular viewpoint here when it doesn't affect my faith one way or the other.

Obviously if God directs the outcome of evolution there really isn't a challenge to anyone's faith. But what if He doesn't? Is that a possibility? I think so. Does that viewpoint necessarily lead us to the necessity of abandoning our faith. I don't believe so for the reasons stated. The possibility of convergence and spirits discovering they can inhabit physical forms is all that is necessary.

Pink flying elephants? Certainly might seem a valid critique. But my faith came as a result of some rather profound spiritual experiences relating to the message of the restoration.

[bcuzbcuz]

Despite its limitations that others and I have addressed in this thread and other threads, the Non-overlapping Magisteria view that science and religion are different domains is reasonable, even in cases where there appears to be some crossover. Young Earth creationists who don't try to justify their Young Earth creation beliefs using science will be fine.

Aren't you trying to state a case for conscious, willed, schizophrenia?

[shalamabobbi]

Aren't you trying to state a case for conscious, willed, schizophrenia?

I can tell you how it worked in my case. I had a conversion due to the spirit. I "assumed" that everything stated by a leader of the church was true. I read J F Smith and Bruce Reed McConkie. I got a degree in Nuclear Physics. Followed compartmentalization (sometimes referred to as shelving in LDS vernacular), lots of confirmation bias, intentional ignorance of the facts along with the idea that if I took the time to study it all out I could provide the correct interpretation of all the facts. But since my field was in nuclear physics I of necessity understood why nuclear clocks are valid time keepers and so I saw that the idea that J F Smith had that the 7 creative periods were a thousand years each was wrong. Luckily(or unluckily depending on which side of the fence one chooses) I discovered that other leaders of the church disagreed with him about the same time in life.

Schizophrenia has a hard time explaining spiritual experiences that are validated by reality.

LDS Members that state that the rational side of man is part of the natural man and create a dichotomy with the spiritual are, on the totem poll of human intelligence, a few rungs below EVs in my view. Nevertheless they make handy foot holds for those climbing the pole so they are not entirely without utility..

Well it's almost time to be off to the beach here in LA where we will engage in the pastime of surfing with boogie boards. If I am remembering correctly you are somewhere in Scandinavia aren't you? If that's the case, neener neener

Edited September 1, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

I can tell you how it worked in my case. I had a conversion due to the spirit. I "assumed" that everything stated by a leader of the church was true. I read J F Smith and Bruce Reed McConkie. I got a degree in Nuclear Physics. Followed compartmentalization (sometimes referred to as shelving in LDS vernacular), lots of confirmation bias, intentional ignorance of the facts along with the idea that if I took the time to study it all out I could provide the correct interpretation of all the facts. But since my field was in nuclear physics I of necessity understood why nuclear clocks are valid time keepers and so I saw that the idea that J F Smith had that the 7 creative periods were a thousand years each was wrong. Luckily(or unluckily depending on which side of the fence one chooses) I discovered that other leaders of the church disagreed with him about the same time in life.

Schizophrenia has a hard time explaining spiritual experiences that are validated by reality.

LDS Members that state that the rational side of man is part of the natural man and create a dichotomy with the spiritual are, on the totem poll of human intelligence, a few rungs below EVs in my view. Nevertheless they make handy foot holds for those climbing the pole so they are not entirely without utility..

Well it's almost time to be off to the beach here in LA where we will engage in the pastime of surfing with boogie boards. If I am remembering correctly you are somewhere in Scandinavia aren't you? If that's the case, neener neener

Didn't realize you were a So Cal guy like me- we should do lunch some time- isn't that what we do around here?

This is relevant to this thread and also it fits other conversations we are having- it is about Susskind saying that he doesn't quite know if science can answer questions about what is "real".

Funny, I guess he must be schizophrenic too. It must be contagious

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics

[bcuzbcuz]

Well it's almost time to be off to the beach here in LA where we will engage in the pastime of surfing with boogie boards. If I am remembering correctly you are somewhere in Scandinavia aren't you? If that's the case, neener neener

That's just downright cruel. We can surf here as well. On the internet and in the water, provided we have wet suits 11 out of the 12 months of the year. (the 12th month I refer to is half of July and half of August before we have to go back to work........since we have legislated vacations of at least a month, neener neeener!)

Shelving, as you call it, was a game I played in my mind where reality didn't have to mete the road. I had two completely divergent belief systems coexisting in my brain simultaneously, never the twain should meet. Of course, a melt down occurred when I awoke from my slumber and tried to address these opposing ideas. Science and Mormonism can only coexist when a value system is applied that allows religious belief to have a value of 100 and science, zero. Anything else is schizophrenic.

Some here promote the idea that Mormonism has no stand on certain issues, thereby allowing science free room. That, to my way of thinking, is like putting a belief system on coaster wheels that glides freely between ideas without ever taking a stance one way or the other. Hence, Mormons can say they believe in a young earth, while not rejecting evolution. They can belief in Moses wandering for 40 years in the Sinai desert, while accepting archaeological evidence that no one was there. The BofM places the Nephites in an unknown spot in North America, neither here, nor there, but everywhere.

It's crazy making.

[supersnail]

Aren't you trying to state a case for conscious, willed, schizophrenia?

Whether the topic is polytheism or science & religion, I have not said a whole lot on this board that an atheist could not agree with in principle. This may be psychologically self-serving, because I am an ex-atheist, but it indicates that overly difficult intellectual gymnastics or intellectual defects are not a precondition of belief. (Although, I am not baptized.) I fully admit that faith is not based on science, and I disown the contrary position, which I'm not sure anyone here had their heart in defending in the first place.

The Non-overlapping Magisteria view isn't overly complicated. Personally, I prefer an approach that is more influenced by underdetermination ideas, because I believe it goes together well with naturalistic Mormonism, but even that is not too complicated. I would argue that many people already accept underdeterminist ideas implicitly. Others on this board have other approaches -- ways of putting it all together without invalidating science -- and I respect those, too, even if I disagree.

I have been there, done that, and got over it. I'm not going to say that atheism is intellectually childish, but I grew out of it, and I do not experience the dissonance that others might imagine.

As for others, a religious person does not consider the objects of their faith-based beliefs to be imaginary, so I am not sure what you mean by "conscious" schizophrenia. Yes, an atheist may consider a religious person's beliefs to be hallucinatory, but I could say that many idolaters are schizophrenic, including those who claim to not believe in any god. That's if we understand "schizophrenia" to mean a condition in which someone can't tell the difference between what is real and what's imaginary.

The even less formal meaning of schizophrenia is having more than one personality. Well, if you want to act the same way at home and at church as you do in a computer science lab, go ahead and give it a try.

Science is an activity with its own appropriate methods and theories on which to base further advance. Typically, the advances are useful for accomplishing our exercise of agency over a domain that has been given to us, partially and conditionally, for our spiritual development.

Auto repair is an activity also. We have all kinds of non-scientific ideas about cars, but we accept the principles of mechanics.

[supersnail]

I suspect that God will let us believe whatever we want to believe if we are determined enough. So if it is the intent of some alleged scientists to prove an absence of evidence (if that even makes sense), they may not be disappointed.

It's up to us what to do in the world that we have come to. Are we going to gaze at some alleged definitive evidence in nature of God's existence, or are we going to obey his commandments? We explore nature and its laws -- that's what we're supposed to do. With the knowledge we gain, we can learn how to use those laws morally. No matter how much we explore, nature will remain lawful and may appear to have depth. It's like exploring a fractal. There's no end to it.

There are all kinds of internally consistent theories that are consistent with the same data. That's why we have Occam's razor. However, the chosen theory does not rule out a faith-based belief. Both can be upheld simultaneously for domain- or discipline-specific reasons without implying that both are scientifically likely to be true. And in fact, theory choices are always tentative. Another issue is that a theory positing laws or principles can be true while an idea of an agent's influence can also be true. So we, beings with free will, can do all kinds of things of our choosing without violating various laws of nature.

One day, maybe centuries from now, we may be challenged with the existence of intelligent species that look nothing like us at all. We may get to that point because of evolutionary theory and an interest in astrobiology. Evolutionary theory may tell us little about how to deal with that situation. Paradoxically, a persistent faith-based belief in a young earth (I say this for the sake of discussion) may help orient us morally even at that point by reminding us of God's purpose (even though it may be fully admitted that evolution itself is not purpose-driven), but if there had been incontrovertible evidence of a young earth, we might not have got to that point. The lack of in-your-face, incontrovertible evidence of God's influence has a function of not suppressing the development of our agency.

[mfbukowski]

This western culture really bothers me. I see it again and again- the view that nothing is "real" or that ideas cannot or should not give us motivation or make our lives better unless they can be proven scientifically.

Can love or courage or beauty or morals of any stripe be shown to be scientifically provable? Where can we look through a microscope and see what gives our lives value and purpose? Where is choice and freedom?

In what sense do these even "exist" if one looks only from a scientific perspective?

We have a lot to learn.

[Zakuska]

That is true. Science is willing to admit when it was wrong and change what it says according to the evidence. Religion tends to be much slower to do so.

And yet so many people treat science as imperical, set in stone, unchanging. Yes to some science is a religion.

[supersnail]

This western culture really bothers me. I see it again and again- the view that nothing is "real" or that ideas cannot or should not give us motivation or make our lives better unless they can be proven scientifically.

Can love or courage or beauty or morals of any stripe be shown to be scientifically provable? Where can we look through a microscope and see what gives our lives value and purpose? Where is choice and freedom?

In what sense do these even "exist" if one looks only from a scientific perspective?

We have a lot to learn.

One of the problems is that, in the United States, one can get a bachelor's degree in science without cracking open a book on philosophy or even reading an article on the philosophy of science. So you have people walking around who have a contemptuous attitude toward Christians who work in retail sales and not in a lab, "soccer moms," etc., and yet they themselves lack understanding about the nature of their own activity. Some with science degrees got jobs in non-scientific occupations and don't work in a lab or teach science (or no longer do so), but hey, one can always be an anti-religion activist and sit around criticizing religious people to prove one's intellectual superiority. Talk about "cognitive dissonance" without being a psychologist, and insinuate inevitable human evolution without being a biologist and/or most likely without being literate in the field. Some of the other problems have to do with the compartmentalization of natural and social science.

The whole situation is fertile ground for idolatry. But it's not science's fault. Volcano worship is idolatrous through no fault of volcanoes either.

That said, there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who support NOMA. Not all atheists are like Dawkins and Hitchens. I'm not certain what the situation is today, but many students of evolutionary biology probably still learn about Non-overlapping Magisteria.

I suspect that physicists may be more aware of some of the issues involved here, because they may have had to deal with Einstein's philosophical ideas about theory and evidence. Unfortunately, popularizations of E=m*c^2 and so forth rarely touch on that aspect of Einstein's thought.

[supersnail]

Found this thread while researching previous discussion of NOMA on this board:

http://www.mormondia...mains-of-truth/

I can't agree with everything in that thread (of course), but there is no point in rehashing discussion that is already easily accessible on this board. I stand by everything I have said, but find the differences, and similarities, with others' views to be interesting.

Edited September 2, 2012 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

One of the problems is that, in the United States, one can get a bachelor's degree in science without cracking open a book on philosophy or even reading an article on the philosophy of science. So you have people walking around who have a contemptuous attitude toward Christians who work in retail sales and not in a lab, "soccer moms," etc., and yet they themselves lack understanding about the nature of their own activity. Some with science degrees got jobs in non-scientific occupations and don't work in a lab or teach science (or no longer do so), but hey, one can always be an anti-religion activist and sit around criticizing religious people to prove one's intellectual superiority. Talk about "cognitive dissonance" without being a psychologist, and insinuate inevitable human evolution without being a biologist and/or most likely without being literate in the field. Some of the other problems have to do with the compartmentalization of natural and social science.

The whole situation is fertile ground for idolatry. But it's not science's fault. Volcano worship is idolatrous through no fault of volcanoes either.

That said, there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who support NOMA. Not all atheists are like Dawkins and Hitchens. I'm not certain what the situation is today, but many students of evolutionary biology probably still learn about Non-overlapping Magisteria.

I suspect that physicists may be more aware of some of the issues involved here, because they may have had to deal with Einstein's philosophical ideas about theory and evidence. Unfortunately, popularizations of E=m*c^2 and so forth rarely touch on that aspect of Einstein's thought.

I think I might have thought up another way to explain it that will hopefully resonate better- I think I will start a new thread about the functions of different types of discourse.

That's the key here: language is a tool the function of religious discourse is different than the function of scientific discourse. Wittgenstein would call each a different set of language games, but no one seems to get that when I say it.

Maybe if I said it was like using a screwdriver to do the job of a hacksaw people will understand it better.

[shalamabobbi]

One of the problems is that, in the United States, one can get a bachelor's degree in science without cracking open a book on philosophy or even reading an article on the philosophy of science. So you have people walking around who have a contemptuous attitude toward Christians who work in retail sales and not in a lab, "soccer moms," etc., and yet they themselves lack understanding about the nature of their own activity. Some with science degrees got jobs in non-scientific occupations and don't work in a lab or teach science (or no longer do so), but hey, one can always be an anti-religion activist and sit around criticizing religious people to prove one's intellectual superiority. Talk about "cognitive dissonance" without being a psychologist, and insinuate inevitable human evolution without being a biologist and/or most likely without being literate in the field. Some of the other problems have to do with the compartmentalization of natural and social science.

I don't know if this was specifically directed at me but I'll answer it as though it was.

From my perspective living day in and day out within the LDS culture and having to endure the ****(rooster) sure attitudes of some that their ultra literal interpretations of scripture are correct and any departure therefrom is apostasy finally takes its toll and I indulge in a little denigration of those ridiculous beliefs that violate obvious facts available to all in our day and age with or without a degree in science.

If I am unequipped without a philosophy class I owe that degree of ignorance to the effect my religion had upon me about mixing the scriptures with the philosophies of men. It may be argued that that was not the intent of this temple teaching but that was the result it had upon my mind when attending college after returning from my mission to Argentina.

It may be your view that human evolution is impossible without divine intervention and so you see a threat in the idea that I expressed. Though not a biologist I have taken many of the free online biology classes offered by many of the more prestigious universities and have studied the topic extensively in my spare time. But I'll make a deal. I'll stop supporting the ToE until such time as I get a degree in bilogy if all the rest of the Christian world will stop taking cheap shots at the theory until they also get a degree in the subject.

[supersnail]

shalamabobbi:

That post was a comment on undergraduate science education in many American schools. I didn't think it was that controversial. I do see some recent undergraduate science course reading lists and syllabi including writings by Gould on science and religion. The post was also an oblique criticism of Dawkins. Also, a bit earlier in this thread, I cited research suggesting that even people with graduate education in science are perpetuating misunderstandings of evolution that may contribute to conflicts between some atheists and some Christians.

As we all know, science is not just about obvious facts. What I have said, essentially, is that a sane person can hold a faith-based belief while also accepting scientific consensus, because of the nature of science and scientific theory. Others are suggesting that we should be talking about the DSM-IV. This is what it comes down to. I noted that there were creationists who made contributions to science, and I was not talking about "creation science." Instead of dealing with the implications of that seriously, we have people literally talking about mental illness.

I am an investigator. I don't think you are telling me that if I am baptized and later express disagreement with young-earth creationism, I would be considered an apostate?

I wouldn't purport to know anything about your education. However, I assume people who are familiar with the Bohr-Einstein debates, for example, may have some insight into the importance of thinking about the assumptions and views implicit in, and surrounding, science.

It is definitely not my view that human evolution would be impossible without divine intervention. I was familiar with Gould's ideas, including Non-overlapping Magisteria, years before I started learning about Mormonism. I didn't reject NOMA even when I was an atheist, and I have always been inclined to agree with Gould's positions on how human evolution happened if it happened. The difference is that I am considering today how, in various ways, evolution may not preclude God's influence in the context of Mormonism.

I don't support creation science. It may seem contradictory, but creation science implies that faith-based beliefs should be discarded if they aren't supported by consensus interpretations of currently accepted scientific theories and data.

Respectfully, I suggest that anyone who actually is taking cheap shots at the theory of evolution stop doing so, because they don't need to.