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

pogi · December 18, 2014

Typical atheist jargon.

Actually, atheists flat out say that God is nothing.

Mars · December 18, 2014

mfbukowski:

I didn't know Philip Seymour Hoffman was a renowned philosopher.

:rofl:

Robert F. Smith · December 18, 2014

1. Science is agnostic on questions of God.

2. Individual scientists are entitled to believe or not believe anything they(and you) want to.

3. ANYTIME you must put God in in order to make science work it is many things, but science it ain't.

These three notions are not really at issue. Experimental science and theoretical science are systematic and repeatable, not positing a deus ex macnina. No need for God or gods there ar all.

However, one need not always deal with religious or supernatural questions directly (does God exist?), but rather with collateral issues. If one can find forensic and scientific means of dealing with those collateral issues, then otherwise intractable religious questions can in fact be subjected to scientific testing, i.e., indirectly. Then the preponderance of evidence can be used to extrapolate a conclusion of some kind.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, for example, one need not argue that his personal testimony (pro or con) has any bearing on science. Rather one admits up front that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is preposterous or impossible. However, an internal scientific analysis of the text of the BofM as compared to archeological reality might be helpful in determining the impossible nature of its coming forth is contradicted by the tight correlation with New World reality. Since the preponderance of indirect scientific evidence favors the BofM, and since this is impossible, the conclusion depends on admitting the only possible way out of the dilemma: The BofM narrative is true and God exists.

thesometimesaint · December 18, 2014

Typical atheist jargon.

Answer this question: If an Atheist says man is in space and has been on our moon, and a Theist says that We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen. Which one is correct?

Rob Osborn · December 18, 2014

Answer this question: If an Atheist says man is in space and has been on our moon, and a Theist says that We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen. Which one is correct?

Cherry picking again I see. Who do you place your faith in? Eugenie Scott or God?

Mars · December 18, 2014

Cherry picking again I see. Who do you place your faith in? Eugenie Scott or God?

Is this a trick question?

What the heck is going on here? Are you saying you can't believe in God *and* oppose ID/Creationism at school?

pogi · December 18, 2014

Answer this question: If an Atheist says man is in space and has been on our moon, and a Theist says that We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen. Which one is correct?

1) Theists say lots of funny things, so do atheists.

2) The atheist had the perspective of hindsight - not fair! P.S Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were not atheists.

Rob Osborn · December 18, 2014

Is this a trick question?
What the heck is going on here? Are you saying you can't believe in God *and* oppose ID/Creationism at school?

You gotta understand that TSS quotes almost entirely from known atheists/secular humanists to support his positions. When you get to the root of beliefs of all those folks on those videos posted by TSS you come to acknowledge that there is an atheist agenda ruining our classrooms. For example, TSS uses Eugenie Scott videos a lot. Eugenie is a known atheist, a secular humanist and belongs to such groups as the "Committee for Skepical Inquiry", a group to scientifically debunk God and other phenomenon. Edited December 18, 2014 by Rob Osborn

Mars · December 18, 2014

You gotta understand that TSS quotes almost entirely from known atheists/secular humanists to support his positions. When you get to the root of beliefs of all those folks on those videos posted by TSS you come to acknowledge that there is an atheist agenda ruining our classrooms. For example, TSS uses Eugenie Scott videos a lot. Eugenie is a known atheist, a secular humanist and belongs to such groups as the "Committee for Skepical Inquiry", a group to scientifically debunk God and other phenomenon.

I don't really know what to say, and that's putting it lightly.

I don't think there's an 'atheist agenda ruining our classrooms.'

The CSI is a group whose aim it is to debunk paranormal claims - God isn't a paranormal claim. So I don't see how TSS's link, Eugenie Scott, nor a group she affiliates with amount to the background whereby someone could ask TSS 'in whom do you put your trust?' I don't even know what can be hoped to gain from that kind of question.

So, to me, it seems like you've got a thing with TSS - like you're tying to get him to admit his true colors or something. You nigh on accused me of perpetuating a dogmatic approach, and I am not in any respect an atheist. I simply respect the scientific process and the body of knowledge it produces. I also oppose Creationism and ID being taught in American classrooms.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Mars

ERayR · December 18, 2014

To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

That is unresponsive to what I posted. Lets try it again:

So we come back to my question.

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.

thesometimesaint · December 18, 2014

1) Theists say lots of funny things, so do atheists.
2) The atheist had the perspective of hindsight - not fair! P.S Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were not atheists.

1. True.

2. Many Theists and Atheists have since time immemorial have dreamt of going to the moon and beyond. Some of both group have proposed ways of doing it. My dad was instrumental in getting 12 American men walking on the moon and back successfully. He was no Atheist either. He worked closely with Werner von Braun. I've actually met Dr. Braun once.

Rob Osborn · December 18, 2014

I don't really know what to say, and that's putting it lightly.

I don't think there's an 'atheist agenda ruining our classrooms.'

The CSI is a group whose aim it is to debunk paranormal claims - God isn't a paranormal claim. So I don't see how TSS's link, Eugenie Scott, nor a group she affiliates with amount to the background whereby someone could ask TSS 'in whom do you put your trust?' I don't even know what can be hoped to gain from that kind of question.

So, to me, it seems like you've got a thing with TSS - like you're tying to get him to admit his true colors or something. You nigh on accused me of perpetuating a dogmatic approach, and I am not in any respect an atheist. I simply respect the scientific process and the body of knowledge it produces. I also oppose Creationism and ID being taught in American classrooms.

I got a thing towards atheists alright. I am not sure TSS is wholly a theist as he supports far too many atheists views. I wish I could believe him but he always makes mockery of the bible and prophets and then uses atheists and their propaganda to validate his points.

If you oppose ID then you oppose LDS doctrine. plain and simple.

Do not question another poster's faith.

Analytics · December 18, 2014

Unfortunately you ARE programmed to think that way by that quote on your wall which is totally reductionist.
THAT IS philosophy- you just don't know it.
And that point of view is 150 years old. It went out with the "science" of phrenology.

You are reading way more into my comment than what I actually said. If I made the assertion, "How gravity works is a question than can be examined by science," would you dismiss me as being a simpleton philosopher?

Somebody can point out that science can examine question X without implying anything about the ultimate meaning of truth, the ultimate nature of reality, whether science has all the answers, whether we can really "know" anything, etc.

Scientific inquiry is a well-defined activity regardless of philosophical outlook.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Analytics

thesometimesaint · December 18, 2014

I got a thing towards atheists alright. I am not sure TSS is wholly a theist as he supports far too many atheists views. I wish I could believe him but he always makes mockery of the bible and prophets and then uses atheists and their propaganda to validate his points.
If you oppose ID then you oppose LDS doctrine. plain and simple.

Then you are a bigot. My Membership Record Number is XXX-XXXX-XXXX. Where have I ever said I agreed with any Atheists' view of religion? Since when is realizing the errors of men somehow Atheists propaganda?

SEE Articles of Faith # 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

SEE Book of Mormon Title Page: ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible From the First Presidency: The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."

Rob Osborn · December 19, 2014

Then you are a bigot. My Membership Record Number is XXX-XXXX-XXXX. Where have I ever said I agreed with any Atheists' view of religion? Since when is realizing the errors of men somehow Atheists propaganda?
SEE Articles of Faith # 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
SEE Book of Mormon Title Page: ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible From the First Presidency: The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."

All I ever see you do is post anti-god material and atheist views. Mainstream science concerning life and its origins is atheist plain and simple. The myriad of pro evolution atheism out there is rampant. Let me ask- where is God in any of it? Thats right- they have kicked Him right out of his own creation and have imagined a secular humanistic approach. Have you even bothered to do research on all of the people whose views you support? They are all atheists, humanists, etc, that are driven off of destroying the mere thought of "god" from public thought.

Sleeper Cell · December 19, 2014

Of course we are. What is unlikely however is that my motivations are exactly the same as someone else's. That simply incorrect we've had over 150 years of actual scientists working in the field trying to falsify the theory of evolution. NONE have been able to do it so far. Do you want to falsify it? It is very easy to do, and no special training or work is involved. Use the same things Charles Darwin had, just a shovel, a piece of paper, and a pen/pencil. Now go dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your publication in the journal Nature. Disagree with global warming all you want, about 3% of scientists do disagree with it. They/you just have to establish that CO2 doesn't trap heat. I eagerly await your publication in the journal Science.

Interesting that you use a religious term to mock established science. Galileo would have been not so amused.

Isn’t “established science” another way of saying “the status quo of knowledge?” You know, the very thing you just said that scientists are “constantly seeking ways to falsify?”

Scientists are by definition non-conformists. They are constantly seeking ways to falsify the status quo of knowledge

Incidentally, I do not. disagree with evolution. But I have mocked Newton's law of universal gravitation.

BTW, you seem to be saying that you are a scientist. May I ask which field of science?

Edited December 19, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

mfbukowski · December 19, 2014

No arguments from me.

But that description is not the same as seeing blue.

How does a mantis shrimp visualize the extra color it sees? I can scientifically explain it, but... what I would give to see it.

There are lots of examples of that kind of thing- bat sonar, whale songs, the sense of smell of a bloodhound, elephant hearing and on and on. For that matter what about running as fast as a cheetah?

I kind of wonder what it would be like to see radio waves. You really should read "What is it like ot be a bat?" by Nagel. VERY famous and influential piece. http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

"What is it like to be a bat?" is an influential paper by the American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, first published in The Philosophical Review in October 1974, and later in Nagel's Mortal Questions (1979). In it, Nagel argues that materialist theories of mind omit the essential component of consciousness, namely that there is something that it feels like to be a particular conscious thing.^[1] An organism has conscious mental states, he argues, "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."^[2] Nagel's example has been called "The most widely cited and influential thought experiment about consciousness".^[3]^:441

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

mfbukowski · December 19, 2014

mfbukowski:

I didn't know Philip Seymour Hoffman was a renowned philosopher.

Lol- yep he definitely looks like him. What is interesting about Rorty is that his wife, a philosopher in her own right, was raised LDS and I think it shows in his philosophy.

thesometimesaint · December 19, 2014

Isn’t “established science” another way of saying “the status quo of knowledge?” You know, the very thing you just said that scientists are “constantly seeking ways to falsify?”

Incidentally, I do not. disagree with evolution. But I have mocked Newton's law of universal gravitation.

BTW, you seem to be saying that you are a scientist. May I ask which field of science?

It is a moving target, and is open to anyone to change who is willing to do the work necessary. New knowledge is constantly being added. IE; Newton didn't do away with the unwritten laws of gravity, but he did explain it well enough that we use the universal law of gravitation to plot the course of apples falling to earth, and spacecraft leaving our solar system. Einstein's General Relativity didn't do away with Newton's universal law of gravitation he just explained it better for the very big scale like for the expanding universe. Quantum Mechanics doesn't do away with General Relativity it just explains better for what is happening at the atomic and subatomic levels.

I don't believe in evolution either. What I do accept is that it is the best explanation we have so far for how we and all life on this planet changes over time. Personally I believe God use(s/d) evolution in the Creation of us and our natural world/ universe.

Social Sciences. Psychology and Sociology. I started college intending to become a chemist. Took Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Botany, and Physics. I liked them well enough, then took a classes in Psychology and Sociology and fell in love.

I've challenged Rob many times to falsify evolution and have even giving him a time tested way to conclusive do it using real science. He has yet to do it. When I present evidences for science being Agnostic. I get called an Atheist, and my faith questioned. When I show that Theists including LDS Theists that happen to be scientists supporting that inherent agnosticism. They are using Atheist arguments. When called on that again and again he claims the Church's flagship university BYU is teaching false doctrine.

Edited December 19, 2014 by thesometimesaint

Mars · December 19, 2014

mfbukowski I read the bat one from a previous recommendation of yours.

Reading philosophy is kinda like chewing bricks, though... Not that it's distasteful or unpalatable, but the rate at which it goes seems to be about that fast.

mfbukowski · December 20, 2014

These three notions are not really at issue. Experimental science and theoretical science are systematic and repeatable, not positing a deus ex macnina. No need for God or gods there ar all.

However, one need not always deal with religious or supernatural questions directly (does God exist?), but rather with collateral issues. If one can find forensic and scientific means of dealing with those collateral issues, then otherwise intractable religious questions can in fact be subjected to scientific testing, i.e., indirectly. Then the preponderance of evidence can be used to extrapolate a conclusion of some kind.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, for example, one need not argue that his personal testimony (pro or con) has any bearing on science. Rather one admits up front that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is preposterous or impossible. However, an internal scientific analysis of the text of the BofM as compared to archeological reality might be helpful in determining the impossible nature of its coming forth is contradicted by the tight correlation with New World reality. Since the preponderance of indirect scientific evidence favors the BofM, and since this is impossible, the conclusion depends on admitting the only possible way out of the dilemma: The BofM narrative is true and God exists.

That's an excellent summation of the argument, thanks

mfbukowski · December 20, 2014

You are reading way more into my comment than what I actually said. If I made the assertion, "How gravity works is a question than can be examined by science," would you dismiss me as being a simpleton philosopher?
Somebody can point out that science can examine question X without implying anything about the ultimate meaning of truth, the ultimate nature of reality, whether science has all the answers, whether we can really "know" anything, etc.
Scientific inquiry is a well-defined activity regardless of philosophical outlook.

Until you make "truth" claims, that is, or claim that science has all the answers about reality, and therefore God.

So if that's all you are saying, no problem.

Edited December 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

Gervin · December 20, 2014

These three notions are not really at issue. Experimental science and theoretical science are systematic and repeatable, not positing a deus ex macnina. No need for God or gods there ar all.

However, one need not always deal with religious or supernatural questions directly (does God exist?), but rather with collateral issues. If one can find forensic and scientific means of dealing with those collateral issues, then otherwise intractable religious questions can in fact be subjected to scientific testing, i.e., indirectly. Then the preponderance of evidence can be used to extrapolate a conclusion of some kind.

I see it the other way around; I think it's all about the direct question. If you choose to believe in God, then that faith provides a context for interpreting the observed world (the "collateral" as it were). I'd rather not be told what collateral issues can be summed in order to "extrapolate a conclusion of some kind" whatever that means. And I don't have the time or inclination to come up with my own list of issues.

Gervin · December 20, 2014

del/dbl post

Edited December 20, 2014 by Gervin

mfbukowski · December 20, 2014

I see it the other way around; I think it's all about the direct question. If you choose to believe in God, then that faith provides a context for interpreting the observed world (the "collateral" as it were). I'd rather not be told what collateral issues can be summed in order to "extrapolate a conclusion of some kind" whatever that means. And I don't have the time or inclination to come up with my own list of issues.

I totally agree- BUT here we go again, with our previous discussion regarding faith vs reason.

If you go on faith- ie "choosing to believe in God" you are no better than we crazy Mormons who rely on testimony instead of alleged "history" and alleged "reason"

All you have to fall back on is your decision to believe. So though we agree, I cannot see how this fits with your usual criticism of Mormon "testimonies". A testimony essentially IS a "choice to believe in God".

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

pogi

Mars

Robert F. Smith

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

Mars

pogi

Rob Osborn

Mars

ERayR

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

Analytics

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

Sleeper Cell

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

thesometimesaint

Mars

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

Gervin

Gervin

mfbukowski

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse