Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 My position on existence is that there is nothing beyond the scope of science, in that science can and will be capable of explaining all of existence including God. Thus, if there is a "spirit" it is simply an organism that is physical, just on a level beyond our current ability to observe. Thus all "miracles" are simply events that have yet to have a scientific explanation. Given this, it strips away the necessity for the mystical. It removes the mystery and leaves an awesome amount of knowledge to be discovered. No more mistaken reverence for a "mystery", but an reverence/awe/respect for the majesty of the eternal truth. When I voice this perspective I tend to get rebuffed by non-LDS religious individuals, as well as most LDS that have not studied their religion. I'm curious about the perspective of those on this board and, if your position is similar to mine, what your experience is in this area. I find that most religious individuals struggle with the position and want the mystery.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 My first thought is that even IF you are correct, there is still mystery. The only way mystery would cease to exist is if/when science verifiably proves the existence of God AND every method with which he interacts with the universe. We are a long shot from that point so there is plenty of mystery. So even if God is God because he understands how to utilize the tools of science and laws of the universe, we are far from understanding how he does that.
Gray Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Spirituality is not well defined - when someone says spirituality you almost always need to ask what they mean by that. Mormonism is theologically naturalistic. Joseph Smith taught that the supernatural is just natural things we don't understand, like cavemen trying to comprehend nuclear fission. Even spirit is defined as something physical but more pure in some way than ordinary matter, as you noted. So in that very limited sense Mormonism is closer to atheism than to orthodox Christianity. I think there will always be mystery - we will never understand it all, not in a million years. And in fact without mystery there would be no sense of awe. Once you understand how it all works, could there be any more religious awe? But awe is one of the great things that draws people to religion in the first place. The word mysticism is often used as pejorative term and equated with fuzzy new age thinking, crystals, etc. But mysticism deals with human transformation and attempting to come together in oneness with the Infinite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism Nothing silly about that. The experiential and emotional side of spirituality is very important. Those are the things that bring us together and help nurture a love for the divine. 1
CV75 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 My position on existence is that there is nothing beyond the scope of science, in that science can and will be capable of explaining all of existence including God.As long as you have a means to live that part of your existence that hasn't yet been explained to you by science, you still exist by non-scientific means.
thesometimesaint Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 My position on existence is that there is nothing beyond the scope of science, in that science can and will be capable of explaining all of existence including God. Thus, if there is a "spirit" it is simply an organism that is physical, just on a level beyond our current ability to observe. Thus all "miracles" are simply events that have yet to have a scientific explanation. Given this, it strips away the necessity for the mystical. It removes the mystery and leaves an awesome amount of knowledge to be discovered. No more mistaken reverence for a "mystery", but an reverence/awe/respect for the majesty of the eternal truth. When I voice this perspective I tend to get rebuffed by non-LDS religious individuals, as well as most LDS that have not studied their religion. I'm curious about the perspective of those on this board and, if your position is similar to mine, what your experience is in this area. I find that most religious individuals struggle with the position and want the mystery. Believe me I am an expert on what I believe. But now onto your main point. I have no way of observing "Spirit" matter. Your God has to mean more to you than what you don't know. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God. as well as plenty of non-scientists who don't. I don't believe that we can make much of a correlation between the two.SEE
hope_for_things Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 I would tend to agree with your premise, but I would add that our ability individually and as a society to understand, measure and observe the world around us is extremely limited. The more I learn about things the more I realize just how minuscule my awareness is. So how do you define supernatural anyway? To a 2nd century human, much of the technology we have today would seem supernatural to them. So I'm alright with stating that all phenomena has a logical explanation at some level. I’m just not confident in our ability as humans to ever fully comprehend and understand.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 My first thought is that even IF you are correct, there is still mystery. The only way mystery would cease to exist is if/when science verifiably proves the existence of God AND every method with which he interacts with the universe. We are a long shot from that point so there is plenty of mystery. So even if God is God because he understands how to utilize the tools of science and laws of the universe, we are far from understanding how he does that.I think I agree with you. The issue I have is with those who hold to a necessity of a mystery, the idea that there is something that will not or cannot ever be explained. That as well as the concept that something is beyond the scope of science present as well as in the future. I do not believe that there is some supernatural explanation I believe that everything will fit into the laws of nature and science when all is known, and that aspects of science like gravity and various conservation laws hold true eternally. I believe that there will always be something left to discover in this life. My use of the term "mystery" does not reference the unknown, but rather the inability to know and the importance of the "mystery". Given a study of creationism, most notably ex-nihilo creationism in Christianity makes my view more important to me. I believe that the need for God to be beyond our scope causes errors that hamper faith, ex-nihilo creationism and the anti-evolution bent being prime examples of such errors. 1
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 Spirituality is not well defined - when someone says spirituality you almost always need to ask what they mean by that. Mormonism is theologically naturalistic. Joseph Smith taught that the supernatural is just natural things we don't understand, like cavemen trying to comprehend nuclear fission. Even spirit is defined as something physical but more pure in some way than ordinary matter, as you noted. So in that very limited sense Mormonism is closer to atheism than to orthodox Christianity. I think there will always be mystery - we will never understand it all, not in a million years. And in fact without mystery there would be no sense of awe. Once you understand how it all works, could there be any more religious awe? But awe is one of the great things that draws people to religion in the first place. The word mysticism is often used as pejorative term and equated with fuzzy new age thinking, crystals, etc. But mysticism deals with human transformation and attempting to come together in oneness with the Infinite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism Nothing silly about that. The experiential and emotional side of spirituality is very important. Those are the things that bring us together and help nurture a love for the divine. When I reference "mysticism", I reference the idea of coming together with the unknown. Most of the individuals I have discussed religious topics hold a position of embracing the mystery in a manner that I would characterize as an ignorant embrace. "we will never understand it all, not in a million years" - This is a concept that is contrary to how I believe as I have stated. I believe that it is possible. I believe that holding such a view limits an individual's progression. You are only limited by your lack of knowledge and what you believe your limits to be.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 As long as you have a means to live that part of your existence that hasn't yet been explained to you by science, you still exist by non-scientific means.I don't agree with this. we live by scientific means, we just don't know that science yet. Ignorance of a scientific principle does not negate the fact of that scientific principle.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 Believe me I am an expert on what I believe. But now onto your main point. I have no way of observing "Spirit" matter. Your God has to mean more to you than what you don't know. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God. as well as plenty of non-scientists who don't. I don't believe that we can make much of a correlation between the two.SEE I am unable to view the video at work, so I am missing some context here. I believe that God works within pure and true scientific laws. Are you stating that God is beyond some pure and true scientific laws, that he is not bound by those laws? I don't believe that such a statement would be true.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) I would tend to agree with your premise, but I would add that our ability individually and as a society to understand, measure and observe the world around us is extremely limited. The more I learn about things the more I realize just how minuscule my awareness is. I agree with you here. So how do you define supernatural anyway? To a 2nd century human, much of the technology we have today would seem supernatural to them. So I'm alright with stating that all phenomena has a logical explanation at some level. I’m just not confident in our ability as humans to ever fully comprehend and understand. I would define "supernatural" as being outside of some scientific law, known or unknown. A duality in laws governing existence, science for physical and supernatural for the unexplainable. An appeal to a supernatural explanation rather than a belief that the phenomena has a scientific explanation, albeit currently not understood or defined. Edited August 28, 2015 by Jacob
hope_for_things Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 I would define "supernatural" as being outside of some scientific law, known or unknown. A duality in laws governing existence, science for physical and supernatural for the unexplainable. An appeal to a supernatural explanation rather than a belief that the phenomena has a scientific explanation, albeit currently not understood or defined.I see what you're saying. I guess its hard for me to distinguish between phenomena that one person defines as having a supernatural explanation, and phenomena that I personally don't feel like I can explain, so I choose to not define it as supernatural, but I don't rule out the possibility that my limited observational skills are missing some key pieces of information.
Gray Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 When I reference "mysticism", I reference the idea of coming together with the unknown. Most of the individuals I have discussed religious topics hold a position of embracing the mystery in a manner that I would characterize as an ignorant embrace. "we will never understand it all, not in a million years" - This is a concept that is contrary to how I believe as I have stated. I believe that it is possible. I believe that holding such a view limits an individual's progression. You are only limited by your lack of knowledge and what you believe your limits to be. Well, so far, the more we learn about the universe, the more questions are raised. The more we know the more we realize how little we know. The universe has certain characteristics that seem to restrict our ability to understand certain things.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 I see what you're saying. I guess its hard for me to distinguish between phenomena that one person defines as having a supernatural explanation, and phenomena that I personally don't feel like I can explain, so I choose to not define it as supernatural, but I don't rule out the possibility that my limited observational skills are missing some key pieces of information. I think that is the difference. Acceptance of ignorance and the inability to learn vs. acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge and the need to learn. I think that any time you accept that you cannot understand and adhere to a position of eternally damned on the subject is a severe error. Ascribing a "supernatural" or "mystery" explanation is stating that damnation is a given fact, imo.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 Well, so far, the more we learn about the universe, the more questions are raised. The more we know the more we realize how little we know. The universe has certain characteristics that seem to restrict our ability to understand certain things. Perhaps. Or perhaps our current state limits our ability to understand. From an LDS perspective one should assume that we are as children and just need to learn in progression. Which seems to be a near scientific law, precept upon precept and all that. Our ability to understand grows and the tree and its branches get larger and more varied the larger the tree becomes. Perspective allows us to see more, Perhaps the tree will never be in full view, but perhaps the tree is not without end and at some point we will see it in its entirety. If we are eternal, we have a long period of growth. Eternal progression seems to be a concept that would require no end to the questions that will present themselves. A lack of understanding does not necessitate the inability to understand. I believe that we will always be gaining in understanding, we will always be progressing. Your earlier statement seemed to me a statement of the futility of progression. I believe this wasn't your intent, but that is how it came across to me in the context of this thread.
hope_for_things Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 I think that is the difference. Acceptance of ignorance and the inability to learn vs. acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge and the need to learn. I think that any time you accept that you cannot understand and adhere to a position of eternally damned on the subject is a severe error. Ascribing a "supernatural" or "mystery" explanation is stating that damnation is a given fact, imo. I totally agree with your acknowledgement of our lack of knowledge, I think that is key. You’ll have to explain the damnation piece a little more. Eternal damnation is a concept way outside of my ability to comprehend, and I thought we rejected that in Mormonism. I’m thinking of some D&C verses were Joseph reinterprets the word eternal to not mean a measurement of time, but rather a title associated with God. I’m also inclined to believe more in natural consequences for our actions some of which result in damnation (halting our progression) rather than a punitive measure from deity. 2
The Nehor Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." 2
CV75 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 I don't agree with this. we live by scientific means, we just don't know that science yet. Ignorance of a scientific principle does not negate the fact of that scientific principle.But your ignorance of the scientific principle you credit as a means by which you live requires that you apply some ancillary measure of reason and the attending faith or hope that there is one. 1
CV75 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Which seems to be a near scientific law, precept upon precept and all that.Well, is it science, or not? “Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims.” http://www.sciencema...51/aac4716.full
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 I totally agree with your acknowledgement of our lack of knowledge, I think that is key. You’ll have to explain the damnation piece a little more. Eternal damnation is a concept way outside of my ability to comprehend, and I thought we rejected that in Mormonism. I’m thinking of some D&C verses were Joseph reinterprets the word eternal to not mean a measurement of time, but rather a title associated with God. I’m also inclined to believe more in natural consequences for our actions some of which result in damnation (halting our progression) rather than a punitive measure from deity. I do not currently consider myself LDS, so my views depart in some areas. I do, however, believe that my views still align with the LDS in many areas. Damnation, in my opinion, is a stopping, an inability to progress. This is typically due to, as you state, natural consequences. The behavior that leads to damnation is typically a willful decision, such as the acceptance of the inability to understand and a ceasing of striving for understanding or the choice to behave or exist in a state incompatible with progression.
The Nehor Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Well, is it science, or not? “Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims.” http://www.sciencema...51/aac4716.fullI do not accept the idea that God's philosophy about science or his methods resembles ours at all. 1
The Nehor Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 I do not currently consider myself LDS, so my views depart in some areas. I do, however, believe that my views still align with the LDS in many areas. Damnation, in my opinion, is a stopping, an inability to progress. This is typically due to, as you state, natural consequences. The behavior that leads to damnation is typically a willful decision, such as the acceptance of the inability to understand and a ceasing of striving for understanding or the choice to behave or exist in a state incompatible with progression.Tramshumanist? Mormon gnostic?There is a great spiritual danger in a fixation on salvation being largely dependent on the acquisition of knowledge that does not come via revelation.
CV75 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 I do not accept the idea that God's philosophy about science or his methods resembles ours at all.Shhh... I'm going somewhere with this! LOL
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 But your ignorance of the scientific principle you credit as a means by which you live requires that you apply some ancillary measure of reason and the attending faith or hope that there is one.Exactly. Which does not require an appeal to the supernatural. Faith and hope are core positions to scientific advancement. You have faith and hope that you can discover the principle, or come closer to a correct understanding thereof. Without that faith and hope, it is an exercise in futility. Being your own skeptic as you quote below is an exercise in humility, also a necessary aspect of science as the quote states. Well, is it science, or not? “Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims.” http://www.sciencema...51/aac4716.fullUnless I'm mistaken, your reference states that it is.
Jacob Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 I do not accept the idea that God's philosophy about science or his methods resembles ours at all.Why not? Tramshumanist? Mormon gnostic?There is a great spiritual danger in a fixation on salvation being largely dependent on the acquisition of knowledge that does not come via revelation.I'm not positive. I have not made an attempt at defining what I would be labeled. I just am. I am rather fluid in my system of belief. A river flows and it changes, but it is a river and is traveling in one direction. I hesitate to label myself. I would state that a close label would be something along the lines of punk/mormon. Apply the 80's punk ideology and position, particularly from a skater perspective, as well as a dose of Buddhism and Taoism to a Mormon view, and that is close to my view. Not gnostic, I think that term wouldn't apply.
Recommended Posts