"spirituality" - Supernatural?

[CV75]

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.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, your reference states that it is.

That is why it looks to me like you are appealing to “supernatural” Gospel principles to support your quest for knowledge, but calling them “scientific.”

 

For example, resurrection is beyond your scientific understanding or your understanding of the laws of the natural, physical world—but by faith and hope you assert they are not. Just like the rest of us.

[The Nehor]

Why not?

Look at how our method for determining facts has changed from, for example, the Greeks to now. I imagine the gulf is much larger between God and ourselves.

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.

So analogous to a guy pretending to be a deep, inventive, and unique gourmet chef by dumping all the ingredients in the pantry into one gigantic pot?

[Jacob]

That is why it looks to me like you are appealing to “supernatural” Gospel principles to support your quest for knowledge, but calling them “scientific.”

 

For example, resurrection is beyond your scientific understanding or your understanding of the laws of the natural, physical world—but by faith and hope you assert they are not. Just like the rest of us.

I'm not positive about a resurrection. I believe that the material that maintains our "life" does not dissipate. There is some material aspect that continues on. A "resurrection" is probably a misnomer, or at the least it gives an improper perception, in my opinion. Death does not really occur. You continue, and at some point you are capable of being united with another physical form. Resurrection as typically viewed would be a raising of our physical form that we are now. If I step out of a car, I can get into a car. I believe that there are "spirits" per se. However, they are not beyond the scope of science, just beyond the scope of our current understanding.

 

It's a semantic issue as well as a position with regards to possibility. An issue of limitations.

 

My statements here are not to the fact that phenomena like this do not exist, just the choice of explanation and perspective on the phenomena. Defining something as miraculous as beyond scientific possibility vs. defining something as miraculous as beyond our current scientific ability (e.g. A ball having words appear on it and giving direction that changes at times defined as something magical vs something scientific.)

[Jacob]

Look at how our method for determining facts has changed from, for example, the Greeks to now. I imagine the gulf is much larger between God and ourselves.

I can completely agree with that.

 

 

So analogous to a guy pretending to be a deep, inventive, and unique gourmet chef by dumping all the ingredients in the pantry into one gigantic pot?

Lol! I think of it more as a specific type of chef incorporating other types of cooking and not ascribing to a belief that some chef's are lesser depending on how they cook, and deciding not to be separate from the other chef's due to their treatment of people that are not chef's based in their disagreement with how those people cook. That and I like anchovies, most people just don't like anchovies on their pizza.

[The Nehor]

Lol! I think of it more as a specific type of chef incorporating other types of cooking and not ascribing to a belief that some chef's are lesser depending on how they cook, and deciding not to be separate from the other chef's due to their treatment of people that are not chef's based in their disagreement with how those people cook. That and I like anchovies, most people just don't like anchovies on their pizza.

I am pretty sure anchovies are pure evil.

[CV75]

It's a semantic issue as well as a position with regards to possibility. An issue of limitations.

This is precisely why it looks to me like you are, as an act of faith, calling that which is "supernatural (that which is beyond your scientific understanding)," “scientific.”

[Ahab]

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.

I agree.

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.

I think I agree with what you mean, but a "mystery" is simply something that hasn't been explained/discovered yet by those who haven't solved/figured out the mystery. Like the word means in a Poirot mystery story. It can be figured out when we put our "little gray cells" to use effectively. For those who solve it is isn't a mystery (to them) anymore.

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.

I've encountered the same resistance you speak of and I am one of those who likes And likes to solve the mysteries.

[Calm]

So analogous to a guy pretending to be a deep, inventive, and unique gourmet chef by dumping all the ingredients in the pantry into one gigantic pot?

Down, boy.    He was asked and he answered.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

He may or may not. There are advantages in being omnipotent.

[Jacob]

This is precisely why it looks to me like you are, as an act of faith, calling that which is "supernatural (that which is beyond your scientific understanding)," “scientific.”

True. It is a fine line. However I think the distinction is important. Using spiritual or supernatural terminology tends to be a statement of something that is and will be beyond the scope of science, a statement of something "other". My statement is one that denies this. I do not know of a means of stating this more clearly and I would not want to be confused with someone who holds the opposing view.

 

"supernatural" is typically not understood as "that which is beyond your scientific understanding" it is typically understood as "that which is and always will be beyond scientific understanding."

[The Nehor]

True. It is a fine line. However I think the distinction is important. Using spiritual or supernatural terminology tends to be a statement of something that is and will be beyond the scope of science, a statement of something "other". My statement is one that denies this. I do not know of a means of stating this more clearly and I would not want to be confused with someone who holds the opposing view.

 

"supernatural" is typically not understood as "that which is beyond your scientific understanding" it is typically understood as "that which is and always will be beyond scientific understanding."

 

Depends on what definition of supernatural you use. You can use it to refer to things beyond science or to things attributed to God and other "supernatural" beings or even just to things like ghosts and vampires.

[mfbukowski]

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.

How do you deduce morality from science?

Give me objective evidence established by experimentation that murder is wrong, or even how one defines right or wrong scientifically.

[mfbukowski]

Why not?

 

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.

Heavy.

[Monster]

For me science is something I can study and see imperial evidence of so I tend to use it to explain the world around me. If there are things science can not understand I agree at some point it may be able to.

 

Spirituality or religion is opinion. There is little to no imperial evidence that anything anyone says is correct. So I like to be spiritual and have hope in an existence beyond this life, but when that belief conflicts with observable facts I choose the facts.

[Monster]

How do you deduce morality from science?

Give me objective evidence established by experimentation that murder is wrong, or even how one defines right or wrong scientifically.

That goes both ways. Prove that morality comes from God.

[Jacob]

How do you deduce morality from science?

Give me objective evidence established by experimentation that murder is wrong, or even how one defines right or wrong scientifically.

Morality is not necessarily based in deity. If deity is the origin of morality, then is morality only the result of a threat to person? Religion typically presents punishment for breaking a moral law, this seems to be the impetus for morality according to religion. Given this, even though I am not an atheist, a moral atheist would be the better person. I do not believe that forced morality is true morality.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Jacob

[mfbukowski]

That goes both ways. Prove that morality comes from God.

Why? I don't believe that's necessary. This is about logic Mr Spock, not history

[mfbukowski]

Morality is not necessarily based in deity. If deity is the origin of morality, then is morality only the result of a threat to person? Religion typically presents punishment for breaking a moral law, this seems to be the impetus for morality according to religion. Given this, even though I am not an atheist, a moral atheist would be the better person. I do not believe that forced morality is true morality.

What does that have to do with what I asked? How does science prove morality?

[mfbukowski]

For me science is something I can study and see imperial evidence of so I tend to use it to explain the world around me. If there are things science can not understand I agree at some point it may be able to.

Spirituality or religion is opinion. There is little to no imperial evidence that anything anyone says is correct. So I like to be spiritual and have hope in an existence beyond this life, but when that belief conflicts with observable facts I choose the facts.

Empirical. Big difference.

[Jacob]

What does that have to do with what I asked? How does science prove morality?

What needs to be proven? Morals exist. Many atheists behave morally and many theists behave immorally. Are you stating that morals would not exist without religion/deity? Given the history of religion and, due to the forum of this conversation, Biblical religion in particular, the killing of another has been a central aspect thereof. One of the earliest recorded events in the Bible is the killing of the majority of mankind in the flood. Throughout the Bible there are multitudes of examples of killing, justified as the will of God. Not murdering and not killing are not a moral principle taught in the Bible. These are principles stated in the Bible, but the example given is not one of teaching the moral of not killing. It seems that Biblical basis provides a justification thereof. Murder, or rather killing, is often justified and is morally acceptable on a case by case basis. From a scientific perspective murder is morally unacceptable because one does not want to be murdered. If one does not hold murder as morally unacceptable then the possibility of being murdered must also be acceptable. Morality, right and wrong, is derived from basic self, and species, preservation and continuation. My belief while LDS was the eternal perspective of God having a Father and the Father having a Father and so on, as I could become a God and have a son that becomes a God. I believe that if this belief holds true then at some point in the eternal past a God evolved to that position. Given this, morality derived from religion/God also derived from some scientific point in the eternal past. Your question is one that must have the same answer regardless of theological position. How do you deduce God's morality? Is God moral? Where and why does His morality exist? Why would a deity have morality? The Homunculus problem of the mind exists in this perspective as well. Where is the puppeteer that is pulling the moral strings of the moral puppeteer and on and on? My personal belief is that evolution has, over time, built into man morality. Morality is a set of behaviors that are inherent in an advanced being. I would state that the empathetic response of normal infants and children to pain is scientific evidence of the moral principle of not harming others being present in humans. Normal adults have the same empathetic response. At that point it would be incumbent on you to prove that the moral principle of murder being wrong is due to deity.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Jacob

[mfbukowski]

What needs to be proven? Morals exist. Many atheists behave morally and many theists behave immorally. Are you stating that morals would not exist without religion/deity? Given the history of religion and, due to the forum of this conversation, Biblical religion in particular, the killing of another has been a central aspect thereof. One of the earliest recorded events in the Bible is the killing of the majority of mankind in the flood. Throughout the Bible there are multitudes of examples of killing, justified as the will of God. Not murdering and not killing are not a moral principle taught in the Bible. These are principles stated in the Bible, but the example given is not one of teaching the moral of not killing. It seems that Biblical basis provides a justification thereof. Murder, or rather killing, is often justified and is morally acceptable on a case by case basis. From a scientific perspective murder is morally unacceptable because one does not want to be murdered. If one does not hold murder as morally unacceptable then the possibility of being murdered must also be acceptable. Morality, right and wrong, is derived from basic self, and species, preservation and continuation. My belief while LDS was the eternal perspective of God having a Father and the Father having a Father and so on, as I could become a God and have a son that becomes a God. I believe that if this belief holds true then at some point in the eternal past a God evolved to that position. Given this, morality derived from religion/God also derived from some scientific point in the eternal past. Your question is one that must have the same answer regardless of theological position. How do you deduce God's morality? Is God moral? Where and why does His morality exist? Why would a deity have morality? The Homunculus problem of the mind exists in this perspective as well. Where is the puppeteer that is pulling the moral strings of the moral puppeteer and on and on? My personal belief is that evolution has, over time, built into man morality. Morality is a set of behaviors that are inherent in an advanced being. I would state that the empathetic response of normal infants and children to pain is scientific evidence of the moral principle of not harming others being present in humans. Normal adults have the same empathetic response. At that point it would be incumbent on you to prove that the moral principle of murder being wrong is due to deity.

You are not getting it.

I have no problem with what you say here. I have no problem with the MODEL OR PARADIGM, recognizing it as such, that both God and morality evolved.

Maybe yes, maybe no, no biggie either way. I have no dog in that fight.

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.

According to this statement you appear to be saying that one can deduce morality from science, logically.

If that is the case, your statement is incorrect.

Your point is that the "history" of morality is explained by science, in your paradigm. I have no issue with that- that is a hypothesis about history and the history of science and morality both.

My question is not about history, it is about logic.

Can you, in your view, deduce that murder is "wrong" based on scientific evidence?

I know that you cannot- Hume proved that 300 years ago. I would like to see if you have a novel approach for that or if you simply did not understand the question. I am presuming it is the latter.

Here- this may help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

If it is the latter I don't have much more to say, I have made it as clear as I can.

Incidentally this reply is also for Monster giving him the benefit of the doubt that he really does know the difference between "imperial" and "empirical" and that his auto spell checker made the same mistake twice in a row. Odd.

Monster likes the other board, and I kind of relish the opportunity to uh, chat with him, even with spelling problems.

Edited September 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Hume on "Is vs Ought"
 

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.[1]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

 

Whether or not the "supernatural" exists is irrelevant to the question of morality.  The question is whether or not "ought" can be deduced from "is"

 

And using science to try to disprove the existence of the supernatural is a dead end because science only examines what is natural.

 

The very phrase "supernatural" MEANS "non-scientific"!  By definition the supernatural is unscientific.

 

So:

Two different questions-

1) Are there areas of human inquiry about which science is incapable of giving answers?

Yes- Morality is one and related issues- like what is important or "gives meaning" to your life.  One does not get out of bed because of scientific explanations, one gets out of bed for emotional motivations which give meaning to one's life.

 

Science does not examine what is important to you and why.

2) Science only examines what science CAN examine- the natural world.

 

IF the "supernatural" exists science must remain mute on the issue because by definition the "supernatural" is "beyond nature" and therefore beyond the ability of science to examine.

 

Be good now, or I will post another Rorty video! 

[The Nehor]

Morality is not necessarily based in deity. If deity is the origin of morality, then is morality only the result of a threat to person? Religion typically presents punishment for breaking a moral law, this seems to be the impetus for morality according to religion. Given this, even though I am not an atheist, a moral atheist would be the better person. I do not believe that forced morality is true morality.

 

In the LDS faith the Light of Christ is the impetus in humans that drives them towards morality whether they acknowledge it or not so the "threat" is not God's main participation. Instead he gives the law burned into us and expects us to follow it.

 

We can't convince anyone outside the Church of this but it is still true.

[mfbukowski]

In the LDS faith the Light of Christ is the impetus in humans that drives them towards morality whether they acknowledge it or not so the "threat" is not God's main participation. Instead he gives the law burned into us and expects us to follow it.

 

We can't convince anyone outside the Church of this but it is still true.

Yeah I don't know where they get all this punishment stuff.  We don't believe in hell and compared to others we believe in universal "salvation" in that everyone- even the worst of us except those 100 or so who actually qualify for perdition with a lot of effort, will be much happier in the hereafter than we are here.

 

So to say that religion is about punishment is about the strangest thing I have ever heard here.

 

In a strange misunderstanding of the English language perhaps brought into existence by people who could not spell, we even think that "damned" is a synonym for "dammed".  That's another weird Mormonism, but it shows how much we are NOT into God being seen as one who punishes.  No one is even "damned"- their progress is just stopped.

Edited September 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Jacob]

According to this statement you appear to be saying that one can deduce morality from science, logically.

If that is the case, your statement is incorrect.

Your point is that the "history" of morality is explained by science, in your paradigm. I have no issue with that- that is a hypothesis about history and the history of science and morality both.

My question is not about history, it is about logic.

Can you, in your view, deduce that murder is "wrong" based on scientific evidence?

I didn't understand the motivation behind your question.

 

I don't think murder is immoral. It can be, but that is dependent on all of the surrounding events and the rationale leading to the murder. We have murders rationalized as right constantly throughout history. Biblical history justifies it. We also have murders that are rationalized as wrong.

 

Regardless. My position wasn't that science can currently explain anything. My position is that supposed "supernatural" or "spiritual" are subject to scientific study and are not outside of the bounds thereof.