"on Bracketing The Truth" And "checking Your Religion At The Door"

[mfbukowski]

Again, I appeal to Elder Nelson's measure:"Clinicians, academicians, and politicians are often put to a test of faith. In pursuit of their goals, will their religion show or will it be hidden? Are they tied back to God or to man?"One can be polite, considerate, scholarly, all the while being tied to God rather than man.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, it just seems to vague to be helpful for this discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, it just seems to vague to be helpful for this discussion.

I earnestly disagree that it's too vague to be helpful. On the contrary, it strikes me as being a tool of introspection that can cut through rationalization and bring real motives out In stark relief, especially when considered in the light of Elder Nelson's real-world example from his own experience. If, for fear of offending professional peers or drawing their ridicule,one buries or covers up his religious convictions (the proverbial hiding of one's light under a bushel) then one is, to use Elder Nelson's phrasing, tied to man and not God, or to use Elder Holland's, checking his religion at the door. It really is quite clear. As Dr. Smith pointed out, Elder Holland leaves scarcely any wiggle room.

But if I were to cite as illustrations cases where I think individuals have done this, I'm quite certain I would be upbraided for judgmentalism. Yet if I give the quote from Elder Nelson as a general statement of principle and leave it at that, you come at me with a complaint that it is "too vague to be helpful." I guess all I can say at this point is "he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Any explanation is fine as long as we leave God out of it.  Gotcha.

 

When I want to know the how God did it. I use science. When I want to know the why God did it. I use my religion.

[ERayR]

When I want to know the how God did it. I use science. When I want to know the why God did it. I use my religion.

 

You can't have it both ways.  You have numerous times expressed that science can not include God.  As science does not include God then science by definition can not tell you how God did it.

[thesometimesaint]

You can't have it both ways.  You have numerous times expressed that science can not include God.  As science does not include God then science by definition can not tell you how God did it.

 

Categorically incorrect.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith

 

Science can't include any God or Godlike force and still be science. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

 

Reductio ad absurdum. "To say nothing about God is not to say God is nothing".

[mfbukowski]

Categorically incorrect.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith

 

Science can't include any God or Godlike force and still be science. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

 

Reductio ad absurdum. "To say nothing about God is not to say God is nothing".

I think the point is more that we wish that science would be more willing to look at spiritual phenomena, like "the placebo effect" which it simply brackets and throws away. When science brackets NDEs without discussion, and similar phenomena, it makes itself irrelevant. It is intentionally bracketing and throwing away large sections of human experience.

[mfbukowski]

I earnestly disagree that it's too vague to be helpful. On the contrary, it strikes me as being a tool of introspection that can cut through rationalization and bring real motives out In stark relief, especially when considered in the light of Elder Nelson's real-world example from his own experience. If, for fear of offending professional peers or drawing their ridicule,one buries or covers up his religious convictions (the proverbial hiding of one's light under a bushel) then one is, to use Elder Nelson's phrasing, tied to man and not God, or to use Elder Holland's, checking his religion at the door. It really is quite clear. As Dr. Smith pointed out, Elder Holland leaves scarcely any wiggle room.But if I were to cite as illustrations cases where I think individuals have done this, I'm quite certain I would be upbraided for judgmentalism. Yet if I give the quote from Elder Nelson as a general statement of principle and leave it at that, you come at me with a complaint that it is "too vague to be helpful." I guess all I can say at this point is "he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

I think you are misunderstanding me, but that's ok, the difference is not that important. Read that Joe Spencer quote, he nails it

[mfbukowski]

More to the point, I didn't feel that suspending my belief for an audience amounted to caving on my convictions.

What? A public elementary school teacher should not read from the Book of Mormon in class? Heathen!

[mfbukowski]

Categorically incorrect.

That's The problem. It should not be.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the point is more that we wish that science would be more willing to look at spiritual phenomena, like "the placebo effect" which it simply brackets and throws away. When science brackets NDEs without discussion, and similar phenomena, it makes itself irrelevant. It is intentionally bracketing and throwing away large sections of human experience.

 

From a strict scientific POV the placebo effect is very much real. The problem with that effect is that it doesn't translate to the individual all that well. It has to be taken in terms of groups of people and not the sole individual. Science is irrelevant on the meaning(s) of the individual NDE's. What it can tell you is the subtle and not so subtle physiological changes that occur in the death of the brain processes.  We all die eventually. What science can not do is tell you what, if anything, comes after that death.  My religion has that some part of me that is me remains after my death. That in the Resurrection that part will forever rejoined with the other part of me that is me.

[thesometimesaint]

That's The problem. It should not be.

 

I don't see it as a problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

What? A public elementary school teacher should not read from the Book of Mormon in class? Heathen!

Of course such a thing would be inappropriate. No one here is disputing that.

 

But if a schoolteacher were a believing and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ, he/she should not be reticent about disclosing that fact should the subject ever come up. Or correcting falsehood if and when it is encountered.

 

There is a heritage organization that honors the memory of the Mormon Battalion. Some years ago, in a conversation with one of the leaders of that group, I was told he had been asked to come in to one of the local public schools and talk to a Utah history class about the battalion. He was strictly instructed beforehand that he was not to mention God or religion or faith or anything of the kind while addressing the students at the school.

 

Such a thing strikes me as secularism -- "bracketing," if you will -- run amok, to the point that it negatively impacts education. How can you adequately understand the Mormon Battalion episode in Utah history without considering motivation and how it was influenced by religious conviction?

 

If a teacher has the temerity to stage manage a visiting speaker in that fashion, who knows what manner of redacted and censored history is being served up to students in public schools?

Edited December 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Categorically incorrect.

SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith

 

Science can't include any God or Godlike force and still be science. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

 

Reductio ad absurdum. "To say nothing about God is not to say God is nothing".

 

Let me get this straight.  Science (which refuses to recognize God's influence in the process) can tell us about a process they refuse to recognize even exists?  OKaaaaaay.

[cinepro]

 

There is a service organization that honors the memory of the Mormon Battalion. Some years ago, in a conversation with one of the leaders of that group, I was told he had been asked to come in to one of the local public schools and talk to a Utah history class about the battalion. He was strictly instructed beforehand that he was not to mention God or religion or faith or anything of the kind while addressing the students at the school.

 

"Hello kids.  I'm here today to talk about the......ummm....Battalion?  This was a group of men who were all leaving Nauvoo in the 1840's to travel to Utah for...exercise.  And a person who they were traveling with named Brigham Young who was their..."friend"...asked them to help out the army..."

Edited December 16, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Let me get this straight.  Science (which refuses to recognize God's influence in the process) can tell us about a process they refuse to recognize even exists?  OKaaaaaay.

 

Science is agnostic on questions of God. Science isn't a they. it is a methodology form studying our natural world and making accurate predictions about it. Because God is omnipotent whatever the results are because God did it. "God please don't influence the corn in my fields. I want to see if it is a waste of my money to fertilize it". "God please make 2+2=5 I want a good grade my math homework". "God please have miniature flying pink elephants pop out when I burn hydrogen in the presents of oxygen". I want my chemistry to work. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe anything thing they want just like you and me. IE; Some of the greatest scientist that have ever lived have been believers in God. IE;

[rodheadlee]

Sure, check your religion at the door to your lovers house,

[ERayR]

Science is agnostic on questions of God. Science isn't a they. it is a methodology form studying our natural world and making accurate predictions about it. Because God is omnipotent whatever the results are because God did it. "God please don't influence the corn in my fields. I want to see if it is a waste of my money to fertilize it". "God please make 2+2=5 I want a good grade my math homework". "God please have miniature flying pink elephants pop out when I burn hydrogen in the presents of oxygen". I want my chemistry to work. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe anything thing they want just like you and me. IE; Some of the greatest scientist that have ever lived have been believers in God. IE;

 

There you go blowing smoke again.  Science is a "they".  It is the they made up of those that work in their separate disciplines and of the philosophies and convictions of the strongest personalities of the discipline in question.  It is the they that quietly take a promising grad student with non-conforming ideas aside explain to them how their career will never get off the ground if they pursue their heretic ways

[The Nehor]

Sure, check your religion at the door to your lovers house,

Then worship like a dog at the shrine of their lies.

[thesometimesaint]

There you go blowing smoke again.  Science is a "they".  It is the they made up of those that work in their separate disciplines and of the philosophies and convictions of the strongest personalities of the discipline in question.  It is the they that quietly take a promising grad student with non-conforming ideas aside explain to them how their career will never get off the ground if they pursue their heretic ways

 

Science is not a they in any dictionary I know of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

SEE Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

 

Scientists are by definition non-conformists. They are constantly seeking ways to falsify the status quo of knowledge. You have absolutely no clue as to how science and scientists work.

[Mars]

Couldn't agree more with tss.

 

"Science" = the scientific method

 

"Hey...   I just noticed that.  Why does it do that?  I bet it does that because of this other thing.  Let me see if I can test it out...  Yep, it does!/Nope, it doesn't...  Gonna hafta try again..."

 

That's science.

[mfbukowski]

Let me get this straight.  Science (which refuses to recognize God's influence in the process) can tell us about a process they refuse to recognize even exists?  OKaaaaaay.

Yep that's exactly the problem.  It is blatantly circular reasoning.

[mfbukowski]

Couldn't agree more with tss.

 

"Science" = the scientific method

 

"Hey...   I just noticed that.  Why does it do that?  I bet it does that because of this other thing.  Let me see if I can test it out...  Yep, it does!/Nope, it doesn't...  Gonna hafta try again..."

 

That's science.

Agreed.  That is a perfect description of what science is- it is a methodology for categorizing objective (communal) experiences.  We can all test the boiling point of water, and always agree on the "temperature" at which it "boils".

 

Of course defining what "boils" means IS what water does when one takes the same equipment calibrated the same way and performs the same "test".  And if it did not "boil" at the prescribed "temperature" (both linguistic definitions) the scientist would conclude that the substance was not "water".  So in a sense it really is a linguistic exercise in definitions.  Water boils at 212 degrees, and if it does not, it is not water.

 

The problem is that most people think that science as it is presently constituted studies all that is "real", that it discovers "truth" and that all that is "true" is discoverable by science.

 

That is not the case.  Human experience is far more rich than science ever even considers, and cannot be fully defined by science.

 

I wrote this a while back- I will quote it because you may enjoy it.  It's kinda long.

 

Exercise

In your mind, picture your mother (or father or anyone you have known a long time) as long as they are not now in the room with you.

Where is that memory located?  Is it "in your mind"?

It is probably a rather diffuse memory of images about that person, perhaps images of her face and including other events.

It is probably difficult to picture her face, because you know it so well, you can picture her young, old, in between, - most likely what you think of is a composite image of the experiences you have had together; perhaps a vacation or two, moments of intimate conversation, advice you have received, etc. You can picture how she looked young and how she looked older.  You can remember events together- the time you did this, and the time you did that together.

Now imagine a perfect scientific explanation of what is happening in your brain as all this happens.  Much of it is yet unknown, but perhaps it might be explained in terms of certain ganglia in certain areas of the brain communicating with other areas electro-chemically involving hormones perhaps, nerve impulses etc.

Is that memory of your mother the "same" as the scientific description?

Does the scientific description capture your experience of remembering your mother?  Is there something left out of the scientific description?  Does a theoretical description of chemicals and electrical charges and ganglia capture your memory experience of your mother?  Is the memory experience of your mother "real"?  Can you really allow yourself to say it is "not real"?  Does that memory experience "exist"?  In what sense does that memory experience "exist"?

Now let's make it more specific.  Imagine a candid snapshot of your mother, or the same person you imagined in the first part of the exercise.  Presumably the picture is an image of your mother, or whomever you chose, with more details of that particular moment in time.  Perhaps the person is laughing or sad, the picture was taken in a specific place, and there are background details etc.

Now you have a very specific image in your mind- it is not a diffuse memory like the first, but now a very specific image of a person you know well, in a specific moment in time, doing something.

Now again, imagine the scientific description.  How would the scientific description differ from the first description?  Perhaps it would be more localized to one area of the brain perhaps not.

Would the second scientific description tell you more about your mother than the first?  Would the detailed account of what was happening with the ganglia in fact tell you ANYTHING about your mother or your memories of her?  So where is that memory?  Is it "real" regardless of its relationship to the ganglia and the electrochemical reactions?  Is that memory "real"?  Can you tell yourself it is not and that it doesn't "exist"?

Now let's do another experiment.

Imagine going for a hike on a beautiful summer's day; sunlight is filtering through the tall pine trees- you smell the scent of the pine, the warmth of the sun, the cool of the shadows, and let's throw in a trickling stream.  Suddenly you hear a loud growl directly behind you.

What is happening to your body in that instant?  Perhaps a fear response- perhaps it is describable scientifically in terms of a sudden rush of adrenalin, a faster pulse, etc.

But does that scientific description come close to a description of fear you are feeling?  Is that fear "real" or is it "just in your mind"?

But more importantly, is the linguistic description of the sensation we call "fear" captured in the scientific description of what is happening on the level of the ganglia?  What is the difference?

Now suppose we turn around sharply trying to find the "source" of the experience, expecting to see a bear or some other threatening creature and there is our friend, grinning and laughing ear to ear!

Was that feeling of fear "real"?  Would you call it "mistaken fear"?  Would you say "I thought I was afraid, but I was mistaken"?  No, of course not.  The fear was as "real" as anything can be and indeed we might say to our friend "That was mean!  You really scared me!"

Why would you say that?  Because you were "really scared"- the feeling of fear was real- it's just that though you had the experience, you were never actually in danger.

There is much more to human reality than science even tries to explore.

[Mars]

I don't object to anything you wrote, and perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I'm feeling that you wish to try to quell the champions of atheism who march under the banner of "Everything I need to know, Science can teach me!"

 

Am I correctly getting that, or am I misreading - quite literally, in this case?

[Mars]

As another thought, I think of an interview I have listened to several times between Brian Greene and Robert Krulwich.  It was hosted by the 92nd Street Y, and you can find it here:

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91859-the-multi-universes/

 

In it, Brian Greene seems to describe himself as an agnostic who is quite sure there is no god because all he sees is physics.  I disagree with him there.  I see physics, but I also see a lot more.  Physics, chemistry, neuroscience, and all those disciplines are magnificent and wonderful tools.  But they do fail to capture the essence of my existence.  They explain the nature of my existence, and I'm ok with that.  It doesn't make me love my kids any less to know that my 'love' can be observed as a collection of physiological reactions to my offspring, spurred on by genetic links.  I see more than physics, I guess.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Mars

[ERayR]

Science is not a they in any dictionary I know of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

SEE Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

 

Scientists are by definition non-conformists. They are constantly seeking ways to falsify the status quo of knowledge. You have absolutely no clue as to how science and scientists work.

 

The problem with this is that science is made up of practitioners who just happen to be human with human tendencies.  These tendencies have a habit of influencing the interpretation of results.  Don't get the wrong idea, I love and respect science and what it has produced.  I do have a problem with the attitude that anything that is contrary to current scientific theory is incorrect.  That science is the arbitrator of truth.