We Actually Do Know that Literal “Spirits” Aren’t Real

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'm neither scientist nor philosopher, so take these thoughts with a grain of salt. 

In a recent lecture series I listened to on Science in the 20th Century...

Was the the Steven L. Goldman series in “The Great Courses”? That is a phenomenal set of lectures--I grant you full credit for reading the very best of the best of books.

6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I was impressed by how quantum mechanics defies so much of what we think we know about the physical world.  We've got particles instantaneously moving from one nuclear orbit to another, without ever traversing the space in between. We've got subatomic particles that respond to each other's motions, even though said particles are light years apart.  We've got otherwise solid particles passing through barriers.  We've got waves that condense into a single particle as soon as they are observed.  It's all so very very weird, so very very unintuitive, so very very unlike anything in what we would otherwise call "reality."

I wouldn't go so far as to say that quantum phenomena is spirit observed, though I have toyed with the idea.  But what is without doubt is that reality has an underlying foundation that we have only begun to perceive and whose laws and mechanics behave in ways that are counterintuitive, non-deterministic, and contrary to human intuition and experience.  If such a quantum foundation can and does underly all of reality, and if that foundation is only now being perceived, measured, and understood, I am very comfortable with a belief in a spiritual foundation below even that, one that is likewise unmeasurable and non-deterministic....

I used to believe the same thing, and was impressed with “What the [bleep] Do We Know?” and such things that promote this way of thinking. But now I’m firmly in Sean Carroll’s camp. Quantum field theory is extraordinarily unintuitive, but its ability to correctly predict things is unmatched. According to Sean Carroll, if a “spirit” existed and had the property of being able to somehow influence our physical brains, we would have found it because quantum field theory tells us exactly where to look and how to recognize it if it were there.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.

I assume by "cherry pick" you mean "to select (data, examples, etc.) strategically so as to support a particular view or conclusion."

Yes. You search for science that supports your preconceptions and you search for science-sounding stuff that refutes science that you don’t like.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Roger, one of the reasons I have a hard time taking your absolutist confidence seriously is that you have a track record of exhibiting unwarranted and unearned bravado, and in not being entirely accurate in your characterizations, and in never really walking back any of your overblown claims....

I searched Google for “Why do people resort to ad hominem?" The top answer from Quora is:

Because they cannot muster an effective refutation of their opponent’s argument based upon logic and facts; and then, being either overcome with emotion as they cleave to their refuted argument, or being untutored in the fact that personal attacks during a logical argument diminish the standing of their own position, they turn against their opponent in personal and logically irrelevant ways.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

For example, back in 2021 you cited Carroll's theories as being "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla."  And that turned out . . . not well.

In another instance, you declared, with supreme confidence, the following:

So your characterizations of Terryl Givens were pretty bold:

• "Givens's latest book ... is subversive ... {and} contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a 'big list.'"
• "Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language,"
• "if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud."
• "A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless."
• "Listen to the podcast."

Your characterizations were also, as it turns out, pretty flagrantly wrong.  I responded:

Elsewhere I said this: "I just now went back and looked at the email I received from Bro. Givens.  Not only did he call your claim about him 'patently false,' he also said this: 'I dont believe any careful reader of the entire book could reasonably conclude such a thing.'"

You never disputed my statement above, nor did you ever challenge my quote from Bro. Givens.  So your various characterizations of him were, I think, demonstrably falsified, and yet you just shrugged it off.  You responded:

And "bow out" you did.  No retraction.  No revision.  No acknowledgment of rank and flagrant error on your part.  You just withdrew from the discussion and carried on.

In yet another instance, from just last year, you wildly mischaracterized the position of a large number of Latter-day Saints on this board (regarding what they understand is, and is not, "tithing").  And once again, when you were caught doing this, there was no retraction, no revision, no acknowledgment of error.  You just carried on.

This seems like a pretty consistent thing with you.  Serene and supreme - and unearned - confidence in your perspective on and interpretation of this or that topic.  I am not saying this to insult you, but to explain why I do not find you to be a reliable or trustworthy guide. 

By way of illustration:

• 1. A few weeks ago I was in a mediation which involved another attorney ("Jared") who has been practicing a long time and has, shall we say, a reputation for making bold and unequivocal declarations about facts being beyond dispute when they actually are in dispute.  The mediator was a retired judge who had extensive experience with Jared. 
• 2. During the mediation, Jared repeatedly insisted that a deceased party relevant to the lawsuit had been adjudicated as mentally incompetent by a judge.  Since the will of this deceased person was central to the legal dispute, and since I had never heard this claim before, both the mediator and I pressed Jared for details.  Jared said that this had taken place during a conservatorship hearing where another attorney was present, and that the judge had made specific findings regarding the decedent's mental competency on the record after an extended hearing, and that the judge had put those findings in a written ruling. 
• 3. Jared repeatedly asserted that "there's no doubt in my mind" about his recollection of the foregoing matters.
• 4. I checked the court docket for that conservatorship hearing, and found that no such order had been issued.  I also found that the court had not conducted any hearings of any appreciable length (the longest one had been about 15 minutes, which would have been far too short for a judge to receive evidence, have witnesses examined, etc., and then make factual findings about a person's mental competency). 
• 5. We also called the other attorney ("Gil") who, according to Jared, had been present at this supposed hearing.  We (me, Jared and the mediator) put Gil on speakerphone, and Gil promptly denied everything that Jared had said.  No hearing.  No findings of mental incompetency.  No written ruling.  Jared responded with "Thanks, Gil.  Have a good day," and then hung up the phone and turned to me and said "Yeah, it was actually in a hearing in the stalking injunction case where the judge made the findings and entered the order."  I responded: "No, Jared, it wasn't.  Because I attended that hearing, and the judge never said any such thing.  And he certainly never entered a ruling, because I have the docket right here on my laptop."  I turned my laptop around and showed it to both Jared and the mediator.  There was no order listed anywhere on it.  Jared just shrugged and walked out of the room, leaving me and the mediator alone together.
• 6. The mediator and I looked at each other in silence for about thirty seconds.  The mediator was, I think, somewhat flabbergasted at A) how utterly confident Jared had been five minutes before the call, and B) how indifferent Jared was right after the call when his mischaracterizations were laid bare.

I later related the above anecdote to a friend, a fellow attorney who has litigated against Jared a lot.  He (my friend) responded with something like this: "I'm not surprised.  Jared has a bad habit of saying something that just aren't so, or else mischaracterizing or overstating it, but saying it forcefully, as if there is no question about his claim, and then acting like anyone who disagrees with his statement is just being ignorant or dishonest."

This is how I feel about the absolutist statements you present on this board.  

Your absolutist characterization of Carroll's theories as being "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" was overblown and inaccurate.  

Your absolutist characterization of Terryl Givens, that we must "inescapably" conclude that he views The Book of Mormon as "a fraud," which assertion Givens himself rejected as "patently false."

Your more recent characterizations of a large number of Latter-day Saints on this board regarding what they understand is, and is not, "tithing" was overblown and inaccurate.  

Your absolutist statement in this thread, that "we actually do know that literal 'spirits' aren't real" appears to be a retread of your prior overblown reliance on Carroll.

You - not unlike "Jared" in the above anecdote - have a tendency to assert, with absolute confidence, that matters are not in dispute and/or have been empirically proven/disproven, when in truth such matters are very much in dispute, or else are not empirically testable, .  It's a habit that substantially weakens your credibility.

I'm keen on following the tenets of science.  Scientism, not so much.

From one of the above-quoted articles: "But there is no basis other than egotism and hubris for claiming that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known. Future physicists will look back on such a statement with scorn."  I find this a far more plausible statement of things than your overblown rhetoric.

Says the guy who came to a message board populated with faithful Latter-day Saints and confidently declared: "We actually do know that literal 'spirits' aren't real."

I didn't start this little corner of the Culture Wars.  You did. 

Moreover, I don't think me and mine ought to just roll over and ignore the Culture Wars when you and yours bring them to our doorstep.  To paraphrase Aragorn from The Two Towers: "{The Culture Wars} are upon {us}, whether {we} would risk it or not."

I did not do this.  I was, in the other thread, speaking of real-world issues wherein biological males are being treated as women for purposes of women's-only spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.), and where people are saying - with a straight face - that sex is merely a construct "assigned at birth," that the sexual binary does not exist, that a biological male's inner-held feeling that he is a woman somehow makes him a woman, and so on.

And I concluded by, in reference to people with DSD, Gender Dysphoria, etc., as follows: "We all should be treated with respect, decorum, compassion, etc., particularly in a medical context.  This does not extend to denying biological reality."

I think a person who says that a biological male can "become" a woman because of inner-held feelings is denying biological reality.

I think a person who advocates for biological males to have access to women-only spaces (bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.) is denying biological reality.

I think a person who says that "sex" is merely a construct "assigned at birth" is denying biological reality.

I think a person who says that there are more than two sexes is denying biological reality.  

Right.  

"Hypocrisy" is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform," or else "the practice of feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not."

I really do believe in in the "moral standards and beliefs" which I advocate.  And although I am far from perfect, I strive to conform to those standards/beliefs.  

You are here using "hypocrisy" for its lazily pejorative, rather than descriptive, value.

Thanks,

-Smac

tl;dnr

Edited May 4, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to Sean Carroll, if a “spirit” existed and had the property of being able to somehow influence our physical brains, we would have found it because quantum field theory tells us exactly where to look and how to recognize it if it were there.

How does Carroll define "spirit"?  What does he say about its attributes?  And has he empirically demonstrated the validity of his definition and cited attributes?

Einstein had some interesting observations:

Quote

Einstein himself had explored the idea that humans could not understand the nature of God or an afterlife. In an interview published in George Sylvester Viereck’s book “Glimpses of the Great,” published in 1930, the brilliant scientist responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:

“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.

“May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues.

“The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

“That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly.”

Einstein concluded his thoughts by saying “Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm a fan of science and the scientific method.  

It's a rational path to knowledge, which will occasionally make life better for humans.  And yet, when you get humans doing science, you end up with the results that you get when humans get their wet little brains and bodies involved in the pure pursuit of knowledge:

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

And economic studies are THE WORST!

 

It truly pains me to understand such problems exist with our body of scientific knowledge.  I've been following truth since my late teens.  When arguing with folks, I appreciate the value of sources and published studies claiming this or that.  But I have to take even the most credentialled of studies with a grain of salt.  There's more wishing and hoping in science than people want to admit.   Because scientists are as human as religionists. 

Steven Pinker wrote about the replicability crisis and said:

A failure of Bayesian reasoning among scientists themselves is a contributor to the replicability crisis that we met in chapter 4. The issue hit the fan in 2011 when the eminent social psychologist Daryl Bem published the results of nine experiments in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which claimed to show that participants successfully predicted (at a rate above chance) random events before they took place, such as which of two curtains on a computer screen hid an erotic image before the computer had selected where to place it.14 Not surprisingly, the effects failed to replicate, but that was a foregone conclusion given the infinitesimal prior probability that a social psychologist had disproven the laws of physics by showing some undergraduates some porn. When I raised this point to a social psychologist colleague, he shot back, “Maybe Pinker doesn’t understand the laws of physics!” But actual physicists, like Sean Carroll in his book The Big Picture, have explained why the laws of physics really do rule out precognition and other forms of ESP.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (pp. 159-160). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

What’s interesting is that the physics that Sean Carroll describes in his book does not suffer from the replicability crisis--quantum field theory isn’t intuitive, but the experiments replicate as predicted. Every. Single. Time. 

Perhaps Pinker is a lowly adherent to scientism and isn’t aware of the limits of science like Smac97 is?

[Stormin' Mormon]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Was the the Steven L. Goldman series in “The Great Courses”? That is a phenomenal set of lectures--I grant you full credit for reading the very best of the best of books.

Yup, that's the one. I treated it as the third part of a trilogy, alongside Lawrence Principe's "History of Science from Antiquity to 1700," and Frederick Gregory's "History of Science from 1700 to 1900."

I love the Great Courses, and our local library has made them easily accessible for me. Each lecture is the perfect length for walking my dog, and I can easily do one or two lectures per day.

Just finished my 56th Great Courses series this morning, and it was among the best I've listened to. Salim Yaqub's "U.S. and the Middle East" is well worth listening to. He's a bit stiff in his presentation, but the course really helped me to connect the dots between individual historical points that I had been aware of, and then understand how those points related to each other.

Off topic and all that. Just had to gush. You may now return to your regularly scheduled brawl.

[OGHoosier]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm quite hesitant to believe that on the subject of neuroscience, anything written in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy takes precedence over the analysis of a preeminent neuroscience.

Forget methodological naturalism, this is just methodological chauvinism. Gazzaniga's research says that, when exposed to certain stimuli, commissurotomy patients react in certain ways. The significance of those findings depends on how consciousness is defined, whether its functions are indivisible, the properties of conscious minds, and a handful of other philosophical considerations. This is the case with all science: it is natural philosophy, and both its rules and the operationalization of its findings are framed by non-obvious concepts which analytic philosophy must define.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Anyway, I didn’t seek out this book because I thought it would reassure me of my preexisting philosophical positions.

I didn't accuse you of that.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But if you know of any good science books on mainstream science geared towards a lay audience, I’d be interested in hearing your recommendations.

The Matter With Things by Iain McGilchrist, particularly the first volume. His discussion of neuroscientific findings across the past 70 years manages to be both broad and rigorous. 

You might not consider it "science" per se, but The Substance of Consciousness: A Comprehensive Defense of Substance Dualism by Brandon Rickabaugh and J.P. Moreland.

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

How does Carroll define "spirit"?

He doesn’t define “spirit."

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

  What does he say about its attributes?  And has he empirically demonstrated the validity of his definition and cited attributes?

His claim is actually quite broad and in one general sweep, he shows how mainstream physics has disproven the existence of any "undiscovered particles that are relevant to the everyday world.” By “relevant to the everyday world” he means capable of having an effect on the things around us (e.g. capable of bending spoons through psychic power, capable of stimulating a neuron in the brain to fire or not fire).

If you are interested in understanding these details of physics, please read the following chapters of The Big Picture:

19- How Much Do we Know
20- The Quantum Realm
21- Interpreting Quantum Mechanics
22- The Core Theory
23- The Stuff of Which We Are Made
24- The Effective Theory of the EVeryday World
25- Why Does the Universe Exist?
26- Body and Soul
27- Death is the End
 

Edited May 4, 2024 by Analytics

[Kenngo1969]

To borrow and slightly alter something Hamlet said (the word "philosophy" in the quote below has been replaced with the word "science") ...

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your science.” 

—Hamlet to Horatio in Hamlet, Act I, Scene 5

 

Edited May 4, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To borrow and slightly alter something Hamlet said (the word "philosophy" in the quote below has been replaced with the word "science") ...

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your science.” 

—Hamlet to Horatio in Hamlet, Act I, Scene 5

 

Hamlet is still right in this quote, of course. Science doesn’t know everything. But it does know some things.

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Fortunately, it’s also an inaccurate characterization of what science actually is. Science isn’t characterized by methodological naturalism but by methodological empiricism

That you think Carroll disagrees with my statement about theory being only able to "see" what it hypothesizes suggests a misunderstanding of what "methodological empricism" actually is. Moreover, since Latter-day Saint theology expressly asserts the reality of "spiritual" things (with statements like "no such thing as immaterial matter) we also assert that the spiritual is most definitely accessible by science. Latter-day Saint theology is empricism in action and not rationalism (not that we reject rationalism, but pragmatism moderates it).

[Kenngo1969]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Hamlet is still right in this quote, of course. Science doesn’t know everything. But it does know some things.

While I appreciate your acknowledgment, I don't know that there are any Latter-day Saints on this thread who contend that science doesn't know anything.  

P.S.:  While I understand what you are saying, a moment of reflecting further reminds me that "science" isn't a self-existent, self-aware, sentient entity that is capable of "knowing" anything: Humans know (and don't know) things; science does not.  And not all science is created equal: There is sound science; sound science based on  the data that, currently, is available; and unsound science.

Edited May 4, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm quite hesitant to believe that on the subject of neuroscience, anything written in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy takes precedence over the analysis of a preeminent neuroscience.

"The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray."

 

~Emerson

Edited May 4, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, what if we are different people and scenarios?

Not allowed!  

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, the narrator said:

Correct. As I would tell my students, we can't experience being determined, so there is no point in dwelling on it too much. Likewise, it's not like we experience making a decision either. So, basically, the Tractatus if applied to this issue.

Which of course imo, it should NOT be applied here since as you well know, Wittgenstein altered his positions on the Tractatus long before he died.

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I didn't accuse you of that.

The Matter With Things by Iain McGilchrist, particularly the first volume. His discussion of neuroscientific findings across the past 70 years manages to be both broad and rigorous. 

That looks like a fascinating book; thanks for the recommendation.  Unfortunately, it appears it isn’t on audible. Have you read The Master and His Emissary? I might listen to that one on audible first.

[OGHoosier]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Have you read The Master and His Emissary? I might listen to that one on audible first.

I have not, unfortunately. The Matter With Things, I'm told, essentially recaps and expands on The Master and His Emissary - in interviews McGilchrist described the former as his magnum opus and the condensation of his whole worldview. I decided to start with that, maybe I'll visit Master and His Emissary if I find the time. 

I've gone back and forth on audiobooks; my attention span is low and thus far resistant to reform, so I struggle to keep the thread of audiobooks. Still, life does not offer as much time for contemplative reading as I wish, so I might start audiobooks and hope I get used to them. 

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

That you think Carroll disagrees with my statement about theory being only able to "see" what it hypothesizes suggests a misunderstanding of what "methodological empricism" actually is.

I'm not sure. A lot of people argue that science presumes a natural world and therefore only considers natural causes of things. While that might be generally true in a practical sense, it is a result of science more than a postulate. In general, everything that interacts with observable reality is within the purview of science.

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Moreover, since Latter-day Saint theology expressly asserts the reality of "spiritual" things (with statements like "no such thing as immaterial matter) we also assert that the spiritual is most definitely accessible by science.

In general, I agree with Joseph Smith’s sentiment that “there is no such thing as immaterial matter.” That’s why if “spirit"s exist and if spirits somehow interact with observable reality, then they are within the purview of science. Carroll talks about Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, who had the privilege of reading Descartes and corresponding with him about his ideas. Elisabeth pointed out that just as it doesn’t make sense for an immaterial hand to interface with and push around a material glove, it also doesn’t make sense for an immaterial soul to be able to interact with a material body. Descartes tried to respond to this, but Carroll doesn’t find his response satisfactory, and neither do I. I think Joseph Smith would take Princess Elisabeth’s position in the argument, too.

That is why we are left here:

The Core Theory of contemporary physics describes the atoms and forces that constitute our brains and bodies in exquisite detail, in terms of a rigid and unforgiving set of formal equations that leaves no wiggle room for intervention by nonmaterial influences. The way we talk about immaterial souls, meanwhile, has not risen to that level of sophistication. To imagine that the soul pushes around the electrons and protons and neutrons in our bodies in a way that we haven’t yet detected is certainly conceivable, but it implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed. How should we modify the Core Theory equation (shown in the Appendix) to allow for the soul to influence the particles in our body? It’s a substantial hurdle to leap.

Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 212). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Latter-day Saint theology is empricism in action and not rationalism (not that we reject rationalism, but pragmatism moderates it).

However, there is a significant disconnect between empiricism in the scientific context, and empiricism in the religious context. One of them uses rigorous scientific methodologies to overcome cognitive biases, and the other relies on cognitive biases to cause belief in the desired theology. 

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I have not, unfortunately. The Matter With Things, I'm told, essentially recaps and expands on The Master and His Emissary - in interviews McGilchrist described the former as his magnum opus and the condensation of his whole worldview. I decided to start with that, maybe I'll visit Master and His Emissary if I find the time. 

I've gone back and forth on audiobooks; my attention span is low and thus far resistant to reform, so I struggle to keep the thread of audiobooks. Still, life does not offer as much time for contemplative reading as I wish, so I might start audiobooks and hope I get used to them. 

I’m more of an auditory learner, and having a good narrator pushing the story along helps me stay focused. Furthermore, I have a lot more time to listen while I’m doing something else as opposed to sitting down and dedicating time to reading. 

I’ll go ahead and download The Master and His Emissary--it looks fascinating. Thanks again.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While I appreciate your acknowledgment, I don't know that there are any Latter-day Saints on this thread who contend that science doesn't know anything.  

P.S.:  While I understand what you are saying, a moment of reflecting further reminds me that "science" isn't a self-existent, self-aware, sentient entity that is capable of "knowing" anything: Humans know (and don't know) things; science does not.  And not all science is created equal: There is sound science; sound science based on  the data that, currently, is available; and unsound science.

All excellent points that I whole heartedly agree with. 

I would argue that the phrase “science knows x” is a euphemism for something like, “skilled scientists have studied things and have come to the conclusion that is accepted by practically everyone who is qualified to evaluate it that with a (very) high degree of certainty, x describes the way reality really is."

Quantum field theory is a really interesting case study in this. On the one hand, it isn’t intuitive and we really don’t know how to interpret what’s going on. This leads to a great deal of speculation and mistrust. But on the other hand, its formulas predict the relevant experimental outcomes perfectly. That is why Sean Carroll said:

Quote

 

Quantum field theory is an immensely powerful framework. If Godzilla and the Hulk had a baby, and that baby was a framework describing a certain kind of physical theory, that baby would be quantum field theory.

“Powerful” doesn’t mean “capable of smashing cities to rubble.” (Although quantum field theory is that, since it’s the only way we have of describing one kind of particle transforming into another one, which is a crucial part of nuclear reactions and therefore nuclear weapons.) When we’re talking about scientific theories, powerful actually means restrictive—a powerful theory is one in which there are many things that simply cannot happen. The power we’re talking about here is the ability to start with very few assumptions and draw conclusions that are reliable and wide-ranging in their scope. Quantum field theory doesn’t knock down buildings lying in its path; it knocks down our speculations about what kinds of things can happen in physical reality.

 

Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Edited May 4, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

To imagine that the soul pushes around the electrons and protons and neutrons in our bodies in a way that we haven’t yet detected is certainly conceivable, but it implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed.

These are not rhetorical questions, I assume anything I can think up has been thought up long ago, so I am asking in order to learn what solution is given for these issues…

While it may be possible in highly controlled environments to set up an experiment whose results are predictable each and every time and therefore one can claim no unknown force acting on the particles being observed occured during the experiment, can you also say that this occurs outside of these controlled situations?

 If we do not understand the nature of dark matter and dark energy yet, if we can only measure it by its gravitational effect, if it is this difficult to observe, if dark matter and energy has not been fully defined in how it affects what is around it in the decades since scientists first became aware of it, how can we exclude that there is no additional form of matter, perhaps spirit matter, that we yet have been unable to measure and has no cause that triggers a change of interaction with particles we can measure in the highly controlled and highly predictable experiments?

We are surrounded by dark matter…what if spirit matter acts on a property of dark matter we are not yet aware of and then the dark matter acts on the more mundane matter we are more familiar with?  Is this an illogical possibility?

 

Wouldn't we need to understand what the effect of spirit matter theoretically would be first and when it should occur in order to measure whether or not the expected result occurs or not?

If I understand dark matter/energy sufficiently, wasn’t it discovered solely for its gravitational effect?  An effect we had already identified and been able to measure?  If we are not yet aware of an effect, how can we look for changes due to that effect?

Many of the smallest particles have been found because the scientists knew what to look for and where.  How would you suggest creating an experiment to expose the existence of a spirit energy or particle or the corresponding force?  Especially since the alleged effects are typically pretty macro and difficult to isolate from other factors.  For example healing prayers….if we would have to know the level of faith of those involved and the will of God prior to conducting an experiment on priesthood blessings, this pretty much washes out any chance of an empirical test.

——

Being able to replicate sensations allegedly triggered by spiritual forces through purely physical means does not preclude the existence of those forces.  If one assumed eating behaviour was only caused by hunger because everytime you caused someone to get hungry, they ate, that would be an incorrect assumption (people eat even when not hungry because of anxiety, to be social, etc). 
 

How can one be certain they have included all possible causes of behaviour, sensation, etc in an experiment?

Edited May 4, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

However, there is a significant disconnect between empiricism in the scientific context, and empiricism in the religious context. One of them uses rigorous scientific methodologies to overcome cognitive biases, and the other relies on cognitive biases to cause belief in the desired theology. 

I'll grant you variance in what we call scientific context and religious context. Though, I would challenge the idea that spiritual empiricism requires a cognitive bias to cause belief in the desired theology. Quite the opposite actually. First, it is quite literally impossible to have a cognitive bias in some manner or another (mfbukowski would have lots to say on this topic). The key to good science and good theology is to place ourselves in a position to accept things that may run counter to our cognitive biases. I think philosopher Blake Ostler's article on spiritual empiricism experience is among the best descriptions I've encountered. He argues that spiritual experiences is trustful precisely because it can run counter to our biases.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2007/spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment

In another thread a few months ago I asked the question what differentiates asking for a sign vs asking, say, if The Book of Mormon is true. I came to the conclusion that we must have at least two things in place: 1) intention and 2) direction. The first is that we have intention of actually responding to the spiritual witness, regardless of outcome. That's different than bias, though I can see how one might confuse the two. And the second is the the humility to face the Lord willingly. Literally bias ourselves in His direction. But here the humility bias is different than a cognitive bias. With humility on accepts God on his terms and the other is like saying, "God, if you want me to belief, take me by the shoulders and turn me around, but until then, I'm looking the other way." It's that (anti-)bias that can deny us spiritual experiences/answers. The children of Israel when bitten by the fiery serpents looked away biased themselves in a direction other than Jehovah and perished. Note that both of those conditions require putting ourselves in a position where we might oppose our natural bias and not the other way around. The refusal to be willing to challenge our personal biases deny us spiritual experiences. In scriptural language, it is being "stiff necked" -- such an individual can't turn their heads but can only look in one direction and we are explicitly asked/required not to be stiff-necked.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

All excellent points that I whole heartedly agree with. 

I would argue that the phrase “science knows x” is a euphemism for something like, “skilled scientists have studied things and have come to the conclusion that is accepted by practically everyone who is qualified to evaluate it that with a (very) high degree of certainty, x describes the way reality really is."

Quantum field theory is a really interesting case study in this. On the one hand, it isn’t intuitive and we really don’t know how to interpret what’s going on. This leads to a great deal of speculation and mistrust. But on the other hand, its formulas predict the relevant experimental outcomes perfectly. That is why Sean Carroll said:

Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Maybe you overlooked my earlier questions: Why do you not like the belief that the human spirit is not real? Why did you never want to believe it? I ask because I think that observing a biological process (e.g. those taking place along the brain-gut axis that process spiritual experience and belief -- and not all that is going on is strictly biological) differs from observing the materials being processed. What is the unseen material being protected by the bias?

[Teancum]

On 5/3/2024 at 11:34 AM, teddyaware said:

It’s hard to imagine that in a universe filled with so many baffling mysteries that the scientific method is presently unable to fathom, let alone answer, that anyone could have the hubris to imagine the world of science, at its present state of sophistication and attainment, is somehow able to provided definitive answers to all of the ultimate questions of existence! It’s going to be most interesting to see the expressions on the God denying atheists’ faces when they pass through the portal of death and realize they’re still fully conscious. But I think it’s also possible that most of them won’t be all that surprised because the continuance of consciousness after the death of the body will seem very natural to them, in spite of the fact that while in the flesh they were cocksure consciousness ends at death. But perhaps the most common reaction of all the newly deceased atheistic former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will be ‘why in the world did I trust in the arm of flesh?!” 

Well you can continue to gloat and relish about the surprise, pain, terror or whatever an atheist might have if they pass on and find out after all is said and done that there is a spirit, soul and God. Yet all you have to go on is what you think are scripture, words of self proclaimed prophets, interpretations of so called sacred texts and so on that have no real solid scientific evidence or proof whatsoever.  Why are you right? Why is @Analyticswrong? 

Is this what your gospel teaches you?

I likewise could gloat that when the arrogant self righteous believers like yourself die and find there is nothingness, and think it would be grand to see.  But alas, there will be nothingness. 

And to add to that, there are billions that believe entirely different religious dogma than yours and they cannot all be  correct. Many conflict with you.

According to @mfbukowskiif I, Analytics and other skeptics follow what we come to "know" as our truth it seems we should be quite fine.  Is he wrong?

 

Mormonism claims our spirits are material.  Based on @Analyticsposts above such material should be detectable. Yet nothing has been found. It is pretty easy to conclude that there is no such thing as a spirit or a soul bases on many thing. You might want to put your dogmatic self assurance aside and explore what many have explored and studies and researched on such thing.  The illusion of self is a good place to start.

Edited May 5, 2024 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:00 PM, Analytics said:

In this purely hypothetical scenario, my reaction will probably be, “Really? So God is a trixter and set up the world as a game so that those who ignored the evidence in a specific way and embraced a certain set of beliefs that aren’t supported by the evidence are the winners? That’s interesting. And since I chose to think as carefully as I could and follow my sincere beliefs I’m going to a lower realm where I can’t perpetuate this on my spirit children without end? That’s great news! Will Karl Marx be in the realm I’m going to? That’s wonderful! I’d love to leisurely discuss economics with him over a game of chess.

Well said and I am with you on this.

[Teancum]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:09 PM, Nofear said:

What do I mean? One of the most profound limitations of a science theory is that it cannot observe anything outside of that theory. It can only observe anomalies in the context of the measurands of the theory and not something outside it. I can speak better to cosmology than neurology. The current scientific models have nothing of spirit matter.

Why is it limit of science that it cannot observe something that someone insists exists and does so only on a matter of faith?  It seems to me the limitation is on the item that is the matter of faith.  Regarding the topic at hand, it seems you are saying that because science has not been able to observe spirit matter, or particles, that is is somehow flawed because in your view spirits certainly exist. Yet science has tried to do what you ask. It can observe particles and the better current conclusion is that the lack of observation of spirit particles leads us to conclude spirits do not exist. The scientific method has resulted in so much progress for humanity in the past 500 years. Far beyond the realm of religion and faith. Without it we would be stuck in the dark ages still.