Jump to content

8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

It may happen sooner than you think that "dead folks come back to life and return and report". 

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...". 

It wont be crackpot stuff for much longer, according to my faith anyway. 

Just another example of some people refusing to accept something that is true and which can be proven with sufficient scientific study.  We're all going to die and we're all going to see what happens after we die.

Some people just don't know very much... and they refuse to be told much about... what will be happening in their future,

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 and which can be proven with sufficient scientific study. 

Last I checked it was a matter of faith.  That is what our "faith" teaches anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying that it's silly to think we should act a certain way.

I just came across this little gem:

Albert Einstein said, “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be,” he wrote. “Outside of [science’s] domain, value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”

  • Like 2
Link to post
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

image.jpeg.661e1e63beafd8f7b58c4cad31da36eb.jpeg

I heartily recommend retirement, but only if you can stand the stress and the longest "to do" list you can imagine, with no time left to do it!  ;)

All I can say is increase the priority level of your "bucket list" while it still makes a difference!  ;)

Give it a red star instead of letting it be a bottom feeder! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Last I checked it was a matter of faith.  That is what our "faith" teaches anyway. 

Faith is simply a matter of being "sure" of something, whatever a person has faith in.  Faith doesn't exclude science or what a person can be sure about when using the scientific method.  The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Faith doesn't exclude science or what a person can be sure about when using the scientific method.  The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Quote

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Depends on what is meant by “things not seen”.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

Science:  the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

observation and experiment

Hmm, seems to me that religion involves a lot of that, too, and that even an 8-year old person can do it

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Faith is simply a matter of being "sure" of something, whatever a person has faith in.  Faith doesn't exclude science or what a person can be sure about when using the scientific method.  The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Not really.

Quote

And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Depends on what is meant by “things not sent”.

feelings, like feeling sure of something, are among some of those things.  and yet we say we can see someone's faith by seeing the works they do

Link to post
53 minutes ago, pogi said:

I just came across this little gem:

Albert Einstein said, “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be,” he wrote. “Outside of [science’s] domain, value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”

There you go! 

I am always quoting Galileo- and it is a pity that no one listened to him.  How far could we be along if they had?

"Scriptures are for telling us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"

Unfortunately Bellarmine didn't get it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

And here we are SIX HUNDRED years later with atheists now taking Bellarmine's view and saying that spiritual issues are about science and therefor false!  Science is now scripture.

Bellarmine said that scriptures were about science, and conflicted with "science" therefore science was false.

The New Atheists say that scriptures are trying to be science, but conflict with science and therefore the scriptures are false.

When are we going to figure out that scriptures are not about science at all, but scriptural poetry designed to teach us spiritual principles, which was exactly also what Galileo said 600 years ago??

Oh my GOSH what a wacky world this is!

They are only 600 years behind while they publish books on the New York Times Best Sellers list.  This should have been settled then!

I guess that tells us something about "modern society"   So sad.

Edited by mfbukowski
Add clarification
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on what is meant by “things not sent”.

Of course you meant "seen"

But the other thing is that it is "things HOPED FOR," not things about which we are certain.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course you meant "seen"

But the other thing is that it is "things HOPED FOR," not things about which we are certain.

Like in Alma 32, referring to things that might be true, maybe, while we consider what possibly might be true

Hope is a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.  Like the desire to know what God thinks and how he feels about something

When we pray to God for guidance and spiritual insight we hope that he will answer us and tell us something about whatever we are praying about.  Praying itself is hoping, as if we are begging him to help us, with hope that he will

And then when he does we feel his assurance to help us to feel sure and confident about what we were praying about, in answer to our prayers to him

Link to post
59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course you meant "seen"

But the other thing is that it is "things HOPED FOR," not things about which we are certain.

In light of the fact that Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son when he was about fifteen years-old, do you think he ever experienced hope in the same way those who are not certain experience it?

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
3 hours ago, pogi said:

There is nothing wrong with either premise.  It is the conclusion that is problematic.

Then why did you change the two premises?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

1) Morality depends on conscious minds.

2) Well-being is entirely subjective and differs from person to person. 

The premise is not that everyone has a subjective view of well being.  It's that every person experiences well being or suffering on a scale.  It's also not that morality depends on a conscious mind, its that it would not be if there did not exist a conscious mind.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

3) Conscious minds are a natural phenomena fully constrained by the laws of nature

No.  Conscious minds and their states--that is the mind existing in the state of well being to suffering--are a natural phenomena.  The existence of the minds and their particular state are constrained by nature.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Therefore:

Morals and values fall within the purview of scientific objectivity - "potentially".  What???  How???  He is not really making any logical link here.

You're not following the syllogism.  You changed it completely and them messed up the conclusion.   Since the conscious minds and their states are and are a result found in nature, then (assuming well being is the goal)  there are good values (furthering well being)  and not.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Morals and values cannot be said to be objectively true or false, or right or wrong.

The arguments disputes that essentially.  The above assumption is being challenged here.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

   We can study the natural laws which cause different people to have different subjective values.  We can study different parts of the brain responsible for those values.  We can study how to trigger those values in the brain.  That all belongs to the hard sciences and is objective.  But science cannot answer if those morals and values are "right" or "wrong". 

Sure they can.  They can measure whether the action furthers well being.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 In fact if nature determined it, then how could any value or moral be said to be morally and objectively wrong?  That is nonsensical.

 

 

 

It's not.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I just came across this little gem:

Albert Einstein said, “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be,” he wrote. “Outside of [science’s] domain, value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”

Precisely the assumption being challenged.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Depends on what is meant by “things not sent”.

Oh thanks, I get it now

Link to post
9 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the fact that Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son when he was about fifteen years-old, do you think he ever experienced hope in the same way those who are not certain experience it?

Nope- you are right.

But it's all there in Alma 32.  Hope grows into knowledge.

Link to post

I just have one more point to make, then I hope to escape this thread- it is about physicalism - the view that we are all "determined" by chemicals and ONE major counter-argument against it was put forth by a guy called Frank Jackson.

The earth shaker argument was put out by Thomas Nagel- whom I often quote because this issue is a staple on this board, and I quote Nagel usually when it does come up.  That is "What it's like to be a bat".  

I am going to try to put forward a more understandable argument.

Physical reactions are noted by science as nerve impulses and electrochemical reactions.

But the "reality" WE EXPERIENCE are NOT nerve impulses and electrochemical reactions etc.

When we get stung by a mosquito it "itches"!!   What we experience is an "ITCH" which is a subjective experience which we cannot compare with anyone else's itch.  One person may be allergic to mosquitoes and their experience may be quite different than ours.

Neurologically the description of what is happening during what we call an "itch" does not itself FEEL like an itch, and therefore does NOT DESCRIBE the experience of the itch the way we feel it.

Some philosophers call what we feel and experience, a "quale" or in the plural, they use the word "qualia".  Qualia are the itch in the bite and the RED in red- not the wavelength of light but it's experience- the way it feels to see something "red"

From an article I wrote in Times and Seasons, at the request of our friend, Clark Goble,

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

he made the following comment, quoting Frank Johnson :

 

Quote

Comment by Clark Goble

Mark

August 9, 2017 at 1:28 pm

Reply to all: Frank Jackson is a philosopher who understands these issues and is very good at explaining them in ordinary language. http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Jackson.pdf The argument “It’s all chemicals” just doesn’t work.

“Tell me everything physical there is to tell about what is going on in a living brain, the kind of states, their functional role, their relation to what goes on at other times and in other brains, and so on and so forth, and be I as clever as can be in fitting it all together, you won’t have told me about the hurtfulness of pains, the itchiness of itches, pangs of jealousy, or about the characteristic experience of tasting a lemon, smelling a rose, hearing a loud noise or seeing the sky. There are many qualia freaks, and some of them say that their rejection of Physicalism is an unargued intuition. I think that they are being unfair to themselves.

They have the following argument. Nothing you could tell of a physical sort captures the smell of a rose, for instance. Therefore, Physicalism is false. By our lights this is a perfectly good argument. It is obviously not to the point to question its validity, and the premise is intuitively obviously true both to them and to me”

So that is the central problem with physicalism and why logically, talking about light wavelengths is not talking about the quale "red" nor is talking about what the mosquito did to your skin is not "make it itch"

Religion and morals speak about qualia, science speaks about accepted hypotheses about what CAUSES qualia in the supposedly "real world"

How often are you thinking about the quarks and subatomic particles in a chair when you talk about a "chair"??

Which language game is the one speaking about "reality" in that situation?

Yet again, Rorty said it perfectly

Quote

 

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Show me where Sam Harris refutes THAT!

He confuses describing qualia with scientific description, just as good old Cardinal Bellarmine did.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post

Just found this- 4 minutes 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I just have one more point to make, then I hope to escape this thread- it is about physicalism - the view that we are all "determined" by chemicals and ONE major counter-argument against it was put forth by a guy called Frank Jackson.

The earth shaker argument was put out by Thomas Nagel- whom I often quote because this issue is a staple on this board, and I quote Nagel usually when it does come up.  That is "What it's like to be a bat".  

I am going to try to put forward a more understandable argument.

Physical reactions are noted by science as nerve impulses and electrochemical reactions.

But the "reality" WE EXPERIENCE are NOT nerve impulses and electrochemical reactions etc.

When we get stung by a mosquito it "itches"!!   What we experience is an "ITCH" which is a subjective experience which we cannot compare with anyone else's itch.  One person may be allergic to mosquitoes and their experience may be quite different than ours.

Neurologically the description of what is happening during what we call an "itch" does not itself FEEL like an itch, and therefore does NOT DESCRIBE the experience of the itch the way we feel it.

Some philosophers call what we feel and experience, a "quale" or in the plural, they use the word "qualia".  Qualia are the itch in the bite and the RED in red- not the wavelength of light but it's experience- the way it feels to see something "red"

From an article I wrote in Times and Seasons, at the request of our friend, Clark Goble,

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

he made the following comment, quoting Frank Johnson :

 

So that is the central problem with physicalism and why logically, talking about light wavelengths is not talking about the quale "red" nor is talking about what the mosquito did to your skin is not "make it itch"

Religion and morals speak about qualia, science speaks about accepted hypotheses about what CAUSES qualia in the supposedly "real world"

How often are you thinking about the quarks and subatomic particles in a chair when you talk about a "chair"??

Which language game is the one speaking about "reality" in that situation?

Yet again, Rorty said it perfectly

Show me where Sam Harris refutes THAT!

He confuses describing qualia with scientific description, just as good old Cardinal Bellarmine did.

I don't see how rorty's comment even addresses the issues under discussion..  to say truth doesn't exist outside the human mind gives the same idea in the syllogism under discussion--consciousness doesn't exist except in the physical natural mind.  

Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope- you are right.

But it's all there in Alma 32.  Hope grows into knowledge.

The fact that the sons of perdition — many of whom had seen God and and knew for a certainty of his existence and holiness — can transition from beings who were once filled with divine light and glory, and thereafter descend into a state of mind where all hope is lost, is proof that hope will always an absolutely essential element to salvation, even for those who have a sure knowledge that God exists.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

.  It's that every person experiences well being or suffering on a scale. 

So how does that work exactly?

They have been asking my daughter today on a scale of 1-10, what is her pain level and it is driving her crazy because it has no context for her. She has never felt the worst pain ever for herself yet and of course has no way of knowing how others’ pain compares to her, so how is she supposed to divide up the quality of her suffering in quantifiable measures?  And anything that can mean something to someone else. Every time I have seen this kind of thing being used, they have to attach an explanation to it anyway and the person says ‘well, I guess around....’.  The only real value it has, imo, is in comparison for the individual. ‘Is the pain better or worse than it was’ would work as well. 
 

And then there is Mom whose dementia has her calling any bad day these days “this is the worse day I have ever had!” and that is true for her because she has lost her context. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how rorty's comment even addresses the issues under discussion..  to say truth doesn't exist outside the human mind gives the same idea in the syllogism under discussion--consciousness doesn't exist except in the physical natural mind.  

The experience of God can be seen as a quale,  an ineffable feeling in reality and a testimony of the church is made up of qualia.

Where else is your feeling of God or anything else if not "in your head"?

Can I pull out a microscope and look at your brain and see your testimony?

Where is the itch in a mosquito bite?

Does red "exist"? 

Quote

"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah

You have said that religion is a language we create.  It is a paradigm of belief.  And where ARE those beliefs? ;)

The beliefs are "constructed" of qualia- the feelings in our hearts, that cannot be expressed until we make up words which are only symbols of our experience- our qualia.

God exists in the same way "red" exists- he is in our minds and hearts and cannot be seen by scientific observation.

He exists in the same way morality exists- in those feelings of disgust when we contemplate the murder of babies which happens daily here,  

We feel it in our hearts just as we "see" red in our minds.   

We name bundles of qualia which are otherwise indescribable.   How do you describe red to a blind person, with OR without words?

It cannot be done.  It is like Mary in her black and white world

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2
Link to post
Quote

the itch in a mosquito bite

:)  I defy anyone to locate the bizarre feelings of restless legs disorder. Even when amputated, the feelings continues in the nonexistent limb.  No machine can measure the sensations.  There is no inflammation, no redness or rash, no injury,  no nerve triggering, nothing in the legs except the perception.  
 

They can only be described and there is a huge variety of experience....yet all (sorta) the same cause apparently (dopamine levels in the brain).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I just have one more point to make, then I hope to escape this thread- it is about physicalism - the view that we are all "determined" by chemicals and ONE major counter-argument against it was put forth by a guy called Frank Jackson.

The earth shaker argument was put out by Thomas Nagel- whom I often quote because this issue is a staple on this board, and I quote Nagel usually when it does come up.  That is "What it's like to be a bat".  

I am going to try to put forward a more understandable argument.

Physical reactions are noted by science as nerve impulses and electrochemical reactions.

But the "reality" WE EXPERIENCE are NOT nerve impulses and electrochemical reactions etc.

When we get stung by a mosquito it "itches"!!   What we experience is an "ITCH" which is a subjective experience which we cannot compare with anyone else's itch.  One person may be allergic to mosquitoes and their experience may be quite different than ours.

Neurologically the description of what is happening during what we call an "itch" does not itself FEEL like an itch, and therefore does NOT DESCRIBE the experience of the itch the way we feel it.

Some philosophers call what we feel and experience, a "quale" or in the plural, they use the word "qualia".  Qualia are the itch in the bite and the RED in red- not the wavelength of light but it's experience- the way it feels to see something "red"

From an article I wrote in Times and Seasons, at the request of our friend, Clark Goble,

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

he made the following comment, quoting Frank Johnson :

 

So that is the central problem with physicalism and why logically, talking about light wavelengths is not talking about the quale "red" nor is talking about what the mosquito did to your skin is not "make it itch"

Religion and morals speak about qualia, science speaks about accepted hypotheses about what CAUSES qualia in the supposedly "real world"

How often are you thinking about the quarks and subatomic particles in a chair when you talk about a "chair"??

Which language game is the one speaking about "reality" in that situation?

Yet again, Rorty said it perfectly

Show me where Sam Harris refutes THAT!

He confuses describing qualia with scientific description, just as good old Cardinal Bellarmine did.

I'm in awe.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...