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

[the narrator]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

this kind of science has nothing to do with explaining "why,"

It very much explains "why." The difference is that the "why" you want is some external and prior intention. For example, I'm completely satisfied with atmospheric humidity and light refraction to explain "why" there are rainbows. You want leprechauns.

[Doctor Steuss]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Until a believing member of the restored church of Christ comes to the realization that those who are devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost are totally unable to fathom and appreciate the things of God, this kind of useless, unproductive so-called “dialogue’ will continue to needlessly occupy too much of a believer’s precious time on earth, in what amounts to a rhetorical hamster wheel that goes to nowhere. It’s like trying to convince someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder to learn how to develop empathy and compassion. — it’s not going to happen. It’s only God who has any hope of waking such people up from the sleep of death,  and in most cases that isn’t going to happen until they are thrust into the spirit prison at death. It’s only when they realize there actually is life after death that they may eventually learn to be humble enough to realize they need to come unto Christ in faith and repentance or they will be lost in misery forever. I learned some time ago to stop beating my head against the wall on this site, which is why my participation here has been reduced by 95%. 

Here I figured your reduced participation was because of your disdain of communism, given that almost every post you make results in you getting thoroughly publicly owned.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes and what is your point please?

My point is that all the scientific gizmos in the world are wonderful for predicting which gizmo gives us a better understanding of how the human mind CONSTRUCTS the world as humans see it, but never CAN find out anything about things "as they are".

But the Faith of Science is a wonderful religion for some who are duped into thinking that what they see is "real".

But if it brings them comfort and a sense of superiority over those who believe otherwise, I think that's nice for them- science is such a simple faith! It must be wonderful to know that your faith is "true" and nothing escapes the Great Eye of Omnipotent Science.

Sounds like very conservative LDSism to me!

But if it gives you comfort, who am I to say you are wrong?

You really need to read "Religion Without God"  by Ronald Dworkin, available on Kindle.

Or even Wikipedia gets it right occasionally!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion#:~:text=Among systems that have been,Cult of the Supreme Being.

Unfortunately science in general, in some people's mind, commits the same error that Positivism did- Scientific Religionists believe that in principle, science can know all things through experimentation, yet there is no experiment that proves that every belief.

"Meet the New Boss!

He's the same as the Old Boss!"

-The Who

Edited May 7, 2024 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

It very much explains "why." The difference is that the "why" you want is some external and prior intention. For example, I'm completely satisfied with atmospheric humidity and light refraction to explain "why" there are rainbows. You want leprechauns.

It is easier for you to talk about rainbows than about offspring, I take it. (Why? -- oops)

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 3:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

Go back in your time machine and tell Einstein and  Oppenheimer that they will never get energy out of a hunk of rock..

What a waste of time that was!   Where is the bang in the rock?

And how can you detect fire in a hunk of wood?  I agree with you that fire can never be in wood.   Gosh- it would burn up!  🤔

I think you ignore a lot of what they knew and suspected back then and the advancements science has made since,

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 3:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

Nothingness doesn't "gloat" or know what "alas" means, so if he is wrong, so are you.  It's heads and tails of the same imaginary coin.

Um yea that was my point....

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But the Faith of Science is a wonderful religion for some who are duped into thinking that what they see is "real".

YOu and other theists keep saying this I think to make you feel self assured in your faith based claims.  But is is utterly specious nonsense.

[MustardSeed]

23 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Until a believing member of the restored church of Christ comes to the realization that those who are devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost are totally unable to fathom and appreciate the things of God, this kind of useless, unproductive so-called “dialogue’ will continue to needlessly occupy too much of a believer’s precious time on earth, in what amounts to a rhetorical hamster wheel that goes to nowhere. It’s like trying to convince someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder to learn how to develop empathy and compassion. — it’s not going to happen. It’s only God who has any hope of waking such people up from the sleep of death,  and in most cases that isn’t going to happen until they are thrust into the spirit prison at death. It’s only when they realize there actually is life after death that they may eventually learn to be humble enough to realize they need to come unto Christ in faith and repentance or they will be lost in misery forever. I learned some time ago to stop beating my head against the wall on this site, which is why my participation here has been reduced by 95%. 

Yes yes we know you are far superior to the rest of us.  We appreciate the little you bequeath us-we are better for it. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I had a couple of hours to kill this morning, so I decided to read @smac97’s epic post. When printed out, this one message on this thread was 13 pages long and contained 5,374 words.

I can’t respond to everything, and the truth is most of this rant doesn’t deserve a response. But I will make a couple of comments on what I found salient.

This link is funny. Steven Pinker is one of the world’s top scientists. As a sample of his achievements, he is a professor at Harvard. Elected to National Academy of Sciences.  Research awards from National Academy of Sciences, American Psychological Association, Royal Institution of Great Britain, Cognitive Neuroscience Society. On list of Foreign Policy magazine’s top 100 public thinkers. On list of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world.

Ah.  I love the smell of Appeal to Authority in the morning.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Steven Pinker happens to think Sean Carroll’s arguments about this are convincing. He says: 

Though our ignorance is vast (and always will be), our knowledge is astonishing, and growing daily. The physicist Sean Carroll argues in The Big Picture that the laws of physics underlying everyday life (that is, excluding extreme values of energy and gravitation like black holes, dark matter, and the Big Bang) are completely known. It’s hard to disagree that this is “one of the greatest triumphs of human intellectual history.”

Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (p. 385). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Pinker also says:

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 (p. 160). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

One would think that Steven Pinker endorsing Carroll’s argument would mean we ought to take his argument seriously.

Appeal to Authority squared.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

But @smac97 doesn't do that. 

I likewise don't take your arguments about the law seriously.  Not very often, anyway.  Not because you are lacking in intelligence, but because you often stray into areas of the law about which you are substantially ignorant, about which you lack both basic and advanced competencies, and then you led weight to your say-so because you are intelligent and well-versed in other fields.

Carroll is, according to you, categorically denying the existence of things he has not even defined, and apparently cannot or will not do so.  And not only that, what you are presenting is entirely based on an Argument from Authority.  There is, AFAICS, no way to empirically demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God, spirits, the hereafter, etc. (again, Carroll apparently has not defined any of these things).  We have to just take your neophyte say-so about Carroll's say-so that "we actually do know that literal 'spirits' aren't real."  In your OP, you state that "science has proven that 'spirits' don’t exist."  But as I have previously shown, you have a poor track record on re-stating and characterizing such things:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

 

Is Carroll "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" as to the subject matter at hand?  Namely, the existence of God, spirits, etc.?

Is Carroll's "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" something that will help "the trier of fact" (me, or anyone else interesting in the existence of God, spirits, etc.) "understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue?"

Are the "principles or methods that are underlying" in Carroll's book "reliable" in terms of helping someone like me ascertain the existence of God, spirits, etc.?

Are the "principles or methods that are underlying" in Carroll's book "based upon sufficient facts or data" regarding "the existence of God, spirits, etc."?

Has Carroll "reliably applied" the "principles or methods that are underlying" his book "to the facts?"

 

To answer these questions, the answer is no regarding "the existence of God, spirits, etc." The reason for that is that "God, spirits, etc." are undefined.

 

 

And yet you have characterized Carroll's theory as  "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

So Carroll has "proven" that these "undefined" things (God and spirits) "don't exist?"  That's what "science" can do?  Disprove the existence of something that isn't even defined?

Quote

However, I would say Carroll is a qualified expert with regards to Effective Quantum Field Theory and the experimental data supporting it, including what it implies about the likelihood of there being unknown energy or particles that can affect our day-to-day reality, including signals to or from the atoms that make up our brains. 

"What it implies about the likelihood?"  

What happened to "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist"?

Do you see just a wee bit of difference between

(A) a theory that "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits

versus

(B) a theory that, as you assert, is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" and "proves" the non-existence of spirits?

I'm getting whiplash reading your posts.  

We can also consider Carroll's comments here:

Quote

Too many people mistakenly equate knowledge with certainty. When they say that we do not know that the universe began to exist, what they really mean is that we are not certain that the universe began to exist. But, of course, certainty is not the relevant standard here. The question is whether (2) is more plausible in light of the evidence than its contradictory. As Professor Carroll reminds us,

Quote

Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance. [5]

 

Carroll: "Science isn't in the business of proving things."

Roger: "{S}cience has proven that 'spirits' don’t exist."

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. 

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

To be clear, I’m not making an appeal to authority.

He says, immediately after making repeated appeals to authority.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Rather, I’m making an appeal to the specific arguments that Sean Carroll makes in his book, which are the arguments that smac97 refuses to engage with.

Arguments about the existence of "spirits," which Carroll does not even define?

Arguments that, according to you, have "proven" (!!) that "'spirits' don’t exist"?

The scientific method is, or ought to be, about empiricism and reproducibility.  As a threshold matter, I think we ought to be defining terms and looking at Carroll's empirically-driven and reproducible showing that "'spirits' don't exist."  And even then, his position is not - as you have asserted - "proven" because, according to Carroll, "{s}cience isn't in the business of proving things."

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Okay, let’s hear it. 

I presume that what you are referring to by “Carroll’s theories” is quantum field theory? The truth is that "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." (Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)

Quantum Field Theory isn’t Sean Carroll’s theory. It was developed by dozens of top-notch scientists over the course of about 50 years in the mid 20th century.

I was referring to your appropriation of QFT to substantiate the notion that "science has proven {!!} that 'spirits' don’t exist."

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

First of all, a lot of what I said in the offending post was correct; The Pearl of Greatest Price really is subversive in the sense that Radio Free Mormon lays out.

Right.  Why listen to Terryl Givens?  We have ardent anti-Mormons here to tell us what he thinks, what he means, what his motives are, etc.

And the book is so subversive that it garnered this glowing review by Richard L. Bushman which was published by BYU Studies.  

Again, let's revisit what you said:

Quote

A recent episode is called "The Amazingly Subversive Terryl Givens," which goes through Givens's latest book and shows how it is subversive in the sense that it 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, but 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.

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."

We should "{l}isten to the {virulently anti-Mormon} podcast" to discern what Givens says and means, but we should apparently not listen to Givens, at least when he contradicts Analytics on what he (Givens) thinks and believes.  It takes real chutzpah to continue to insist that you know what Givens thinks and intends better than Givens himself does.  From Givens himself (when asked "Would you agree with this characterization/conclusion (that you are conceding that the Pearl of Great Price is 'a fraud')?"):

Quote

I appreciate your going to the source!  The allegation that you can deduce from my book that I believe or imply that the Book of Abraham is a fraud is patently false. I dont believe any careful reader of the entire book could reasonably conclude such a thing.

And here you are, years later, doubling down on your allegation that Givens' book is, relative to the Book of Abraham, "subversive," and that Givens intended it to be so.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

You haven’t demonstrated otherwise.

You attributed X to Givens.  I conferred with Givens, who unequivocally denies X.

Res ipsa loquitur.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

There really are many discrepancies between the Church’s orthodox teachings and what Givens says in his scholarship. Having said that, whether or not this means it is “true” or is a “fraud” depends upon your definitions of those things, and how sophisticated you want to be about it, and your personal beliefs.

Yes, yes.  When in doubt, re-define terms, equivocate and double down.  

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Does Givens think it is a “fraud”? He says he doesn’t and I accept his word on the matter.

Says the guy who just 20 seconds ago was insisting that Givens' book is "is subversive."

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

At the time, I thanked you for correcting me, and I now profusely apologize for stating that Givens thought it was a fraud.

Says the guy who just 20 seconds ago was insisting that Givens' book is "is subversive."

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Given the tension between what apologists say and the Church’s orthodox teachings you can understand why I might be confused about such things.

I think the more likely explanation is that you are not a trustworthy guide on these matters.  You do not listen to us.  You substantially mischaracterize and misrepresent us.  You regularly presume to speak for us.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is false. From your link, I said "the definition of “tithing” is the wrong question. The real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”  

It’s amazing that you think I was wrong about this.

It's even more amazing that you think there is a material distinction between "tithing" and "tithing funds."

And not only that, in the discussion last year you equivocated even further:

Quote

Quote

In that context, what is a tithing fund?

Well, let's start by not equivocating.

Pres. Hinckley did not say "a tithing fund."  He said "I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used."

In the phrase "tithing funds," "tithing" is being used as an adjective to modify the noun "funds." The phrase refers to funds which have been tithed.

In contrast, funds obtained from sources other than tithed donations from members of the Church cannot, by any reasonable measure, be characterized as "tithing funds."

You can't go five minutes without pulling these stunts.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

In those old threads from 10 years ago, the MDB participants had a paradigm that is different than the one you now insist be used in the court cases.

Once again you presume to speak for the Latter-day Saints.  To tell us what we were thinking then.  

You are not a trustworthy source of information regarding what Latter-day Saints believe and think.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Back then, the question was not the definition of tithing.

Yes, it was.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Back then, the majority of the MDB participants thought that using tithing money to generate investment income to build a mall is indirectly using tithing money to build a mall. Read the OP:

No, they didn't.  I compiled their statements here.  I quoted them verbatim.  I also noted that you were conspicuously not quoting any Latter-day Saints to support your characterization of their assessment of the issue.  I concluded:

Quote

Oi.  That was a slog.  But perhaps it was useful.  To sum up what the Latter-day Saints were saying back in 2012 and 2015:

• "Tithing and other consecrated funds"
• "the funds for the mall did not come from tithing"
• "if they say tithing money is not used for the building of things like the mall I can believe them"
• "{tithing} slips have provided ways to distinguish between various types of offerings"
• "Our leaders have stated plainly that no tithing funds were used"
• "I will continue to give whatever excess funds I can, apart from tithing, for the fast offering, for the Church Humanitarian fund, for the Perpetual Education Fund..."
• "The Church has a statement saying the money did not come from tithing funds, and specifying where it did originate."
• "{'not tithing' funds are} income from church owned businesses and sometimes from direct donations from members for a specific purpose."
• "There a great many original non-tithing sources of funds..."
• "The Church has more than one bucket of investment funds.  It has a diversified portfolio of almost all investment opportunities - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Church funds, tithing funds, are not commingled with investment funds."
• "When someone at Church HQ says that no tithing funds were used, it is very likely true."
• "If the Church leaders say that no tithing funds were used, I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There are plenty of for-profit funds available..."
• "Thus the source of funds can be completely controlled, and the money for City Creek can be certified NOT to have come out of Tithing funds."
• "I do believe that no tithing money was used for CityCreek."
• "When they say 'non tithing funds' they mean that money that people paid as tithing was not used."
• "All donations made to the Church through the donation process of each ward and branch go to this non profit entity.  This includes tithing, fast offering, missionary, perpetual education fund and humanitarian fund."
• "If the statement was made that no tithing funds were used, I am confident that is the case."

That sure sounds like what Latter-day Saints are saying now, in 2023, in this thread.  If the Latter-day Saints believe that A) the Church stated that the funds for City Creek did not come from tithing, and also B) the Church actually used from for City Creek, then those funds, ipso facto, are not "tithing funds," and the Latter-day Saints are not treating "tithing" as being synonymous with all other sources of Church income.  So it won't do for you to cram into our mouths and minds the notion that "tithing" includes monies that are not tithes.  You are just making that up.

Observant and conversant Latter-day Saints understand what "tithing" is, and what it means, and what it is not and what it does not mean.  (For that matter, I think the overwhelming majority of all people familiar with a dictionary would not subscribe to your tortured re-definition of "tithing.")

Latter-day Saints understand that the Church receives "tithes" from members (a tenth of their income), but also has other sources of income.  Fast offerings.  Charitable donations (such as to LDS Philanthropies), earnings on investments, for-profit ventures, and so on.

Latter-day Saints do not, per your suggestion, conflate these various sources of income as all falling under the rubric of "tithing."  Tithing has an actual and fairly specific definition and meaning.

A tithe is a donation by a member of the Church amounting to a tenth of his income.

A fast offering is a numerically distinct and separate and additional donation by a member of the Church, generally equivalent to the money that would have been spent on two meals (some members give more, some give less).  A fast offering is money that belongs to the Church, but it is not a "tithe," and tithing is not a fast offering.  The two are not synonymous.

A profit generated by EPA investing money in stocks, bonds, etc. is money that belongs to the Church, but such earnings on EPA's investments is not a "tithe" and tithing is not money generated by the EPA's investment efforts.  The two are not synonymous.

And so on.

Though derived from different sources, all of the monies held by the Church are held in trust.  All of these monies belong to the Lord.  All of these monies are, therefore, "sacred funds."  But not all "sacred funds" are "tithing."  Latter-day Saints, as shown above, do not believe that.  Nor does the Church teach that.

You are not a trustworthy source of information regarding what Latter-day Saints believe and think.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

The issue wasn’t the definition of tithing.

Yes, it is.  Re-defining "tithing" is Huntsman's last-ditch effort to salvage his lawsuit.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

The issue was whether using tithing money to generate investment income to build a mall was indirectly using tithing money to build a mall.

No, that's not the issue.  Not in the Huntsman lawsuit, and not in the previous threads in which Latter-day Saints weighed in and pretty much exclusively differentiated between tithes and non-tithes.  You and Huntsman are grasping at straws here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 7, 2024 by smac97

[MiserereNobis]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:53 AM, teddyaware said:

those who are devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost are totally unable to fathom and appreciate the things of God

Who is devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost? My understanding of LDS doctrine is that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given after baptism?

On 5/6/2024 at 11:53 AM, teddyaware said:

 It’s only God who has any hope of waking such people up from the sleep of death,  and in most cases that isn’t going to happen until they are thrust into the spirit prison at death.

You're looking forward to them experiencing this, aren't you.

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is easier for you to talk about rainbows than about offspring, I take it. (Why? -- oops)

It's not. I was merely providing an analogy. Odd assumption from you though.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

YOu and other theists keep saying this I think to make you feel self assured in your faith based claims.  But is is utterly specious nonsense.

You're missing the point of @mfbukowski comment (an all too common occurrence when reading a Wittgensteinian critique.

There is "reality" as described by science, and there is "reality" as it is experienced. They are two different things and part of different language games. The former involves the material science, the latter involves human experience. Apologists and critics alike constantly confuse the two, and they act as if you can describe a bowl of cereal by reading the list of ingredients on the cardboard cereal box.

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 6:59 AM, Calm said:

Yet much of science is a result of religion, so without religion we would also most likely still be stuck in the dark ages. 

How is science the result of religion?  I think the dark ages was caused by the dominance of Christianity in the world.  Geographically other areas without Christianity advanced further during the period Europe was in the dark ages.  Science and the period of enlightenment moved us out of the dark ages and science was opposed by the dominant Christian faith at the time.

On 5/5/2024 at 6:59 AM, Calm said:

 

 

PS:  dark ages weren’t that dark unless by dark you mean unknown due to lost texts, lost records, etc. 

I was referring to the the state of western humanity from the fall of the Roman empire to about the time of the reformation give or take a few hundred years.

Edited May 7, 2024 by Teancum

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well hmmm....ok.... if that works for you.  But it sure seems a convoluted way to make something that really has a simple answer to fit in your religious faith based beliefs.

The second part playing with experiments is quite convoluted, but the first part is quite simple if you understand my point, which I probably should have just made with this observation.

Quote

Theoretically, after all, if communication between the two halves of the brain could be restored, the person would have one mind again.  It would seem to be is the illusion of two entities, not the reality of it. 

Do you see Bluedreams’ experience as convoluted?

My first reasoning was a poorly focused, poorly worded floundering that was meant to present the same idea as Bluedreams presented.

Edited May 7, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is, AFAICS, no way to empirically demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God, spirits, the hereafter, etc. (again, Carroll apparently has not defined any of these things). 

Likewise, there is no way to force you to engage with Carroll’s actual arguments. I’ve done my best to summarize them. To provide extensive quotes. I’ve even offered to buy you a copy of the book so you can read the whole thing in context. 

But you won’t do it. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We have to just take your neophyte say-so about Carroll's say-so...

No you don’t. You could read his actual arguments. You could study the science behind it. The fact that you won’t make an effort to understand his actual arguments doesn’t mean that you can’t. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Carroll: "Science isn't in the business of proving things."

Roger: "{S}cience has proven that 'spirits' don’t exist."

In the English language, the word “prove” has multiple meanings. It’s impossible to communicate unless the listener is willing to make a good-faith effort to understand the speaker. But you aren’t listening in good faith.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

If you cared enough about science to actually read Carroll’s book so you’d understand the specific arguments directly from him, and then clarify to me how you think I’m misrepresenting them, I’d be very interested in your feedback. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The scientific method is, or ought to be, about empiricism and reproducibility. 

Yes.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As a threshold matter, I think we ought to be defining terms and looking at Carroll's empirically-driven and reproducible showing that "'spirits' don't exist."

Exactly. Those of us that are interested in science read books like Big Picture so we can understand the nuances of these empirically-driven results.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And even then, his position is not - as you have asserted - "proven" because, according to Carroll, "{s}cience isn't in the business of proving things."

I was using the word “proven” colloquially, and a reader that was making a good-faith effort to understand my point would understand that. More carefully written and in his own words, Carroll said:

"We can be confident that the Core Theory, accounting for the substances and processes we experience in our everyday life, is correct. A thousand years from now we will have learned a lot more about the fundamental nature of physics, but we will still use the Core Theory to talk about this particular layer of reality. From the perspective of poetic naturalism, there is one story of reality we can tell with confidence, in a well-defined domain of applicability. We can’t be metaphysically certain of this; it’s not something we can prove mathematically, since science never proves things. But in any good Bayesian accounting, it seems overwhelmingly likely to be true. The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known."

Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 177). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  Why listen to Terryl Givens?

According to Radio Free Mormon, we all should, because his academic writing subverts the orthodox teachings of the Church.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Says the guy who just 20 seconds ago was insisting that Givens' book is "is subversive."

Says the guy who just 20 seconds ago was insisting that Givens' book is "is subversive."

You aren’t very good with nuance, are you.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's even more amazing that you think there is a material distinction between "tithing" and "tithing funds.”...

If you’d like to continue talking about Sean Carroll’s theory, I’d be glad to do so. Your desire to talk about these other items needs to go to a fresh thread.

Edited May 7, 2024 by Analytics

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, the narrator said:

You're missing the point of @mfbukowski comment (an all too common occurrence when reading a Wittgensteinian critique.

There is "reality" as described by science, and there is "reality" as it is experienced. They are two different things and part of different language games. The former involves the material science, the latter involves human experience. Apologists and critics alike constantly confuse the two, and they act as if you can describe a bowl of cereal by reading the list of ingredients on the cardboard cereal box.

I try to get his philosophical commentary but maybe I am to stupid to understand it. It is all mush to me in my pea brain. 

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The second part playing with experiments is quite convoluted, but the first part is quite simple if you understand my point, which I probably should have just made with this observation.

Do you see Bluedreams’ experience as convoluted?

I am processing her comments now. Let me think about it. I am not sure her observations really agree to the science on persons with split hemisphere brains.

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:29 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

This is interesting...

* We teach that a child who dies at 2 under tragic, painful circumstances doesn't have merely a 2nd chance to endure more of mortality and it's painful issues, but that that child is raised to eternal life in the mansions of Celestial Glory to grow and progress in the presence of our Heavenly Parents in eternal joy. Which of these two concepts seems more merciful?

I know you did not ask me but I will answer anyway. Obviously the latter seems more merciful. I would wish it to be so. But as a child when I lost my magical belief in Santa Clause I wished he were real anyway.  My hope or wish did not  make it so. Nor does the fact that your proposal is more merciful. There are all sorts of thing I used to believe that I still wish were true. They are not. I have to live with that fact.

On 5/5/2024 at 9:29 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

* There is a "debriefing" coming in the Millennium- where all the mysteries of the earth and it's history and what it all means and how it ties together will be revealed.

These are basic scriptural concepts... Did you never learn them while in the Church?

I am sure @Analyticslearned these things as did I? We just have determined they are about as true as fairies, Santa Clause or Leprechauns being real.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How is science the result of religion? 

I am not going to be able to pull up any quotes without searching and I need to do other things today, but quite a few scientists (I am including those who studied the natural world looking for what they saw as natural explanations long before the standardization of the scientific method) were motivated to study the natural world (do natural philosophy as science was previously understood) because they saw God/the Divine in the workings of the world.  There are certain roles of religion that also encouraged seeking of knowledge, it was monks who preserved books, etc.

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

Quote

The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century."^[3]

In my past readings (which is why I can’t quote them, but am relying on wiki) the claims were essentially the foundations of science weren’t separated from religion.  The original scientists weren’t rebelling or in conflict with the religious constructions of their time.  Science is what it is today because of how it evolved out of the faith of those who sought to encounter God/the divine by understanding his creations.

Quote

Most scientific and technical innovations until the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method.  . Roger Bacon, often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar^[10] and medieval Christians who studied nature emphasized natural explanations.^[11] Confucian thought, whether religious or non-religious in nature, has held different views of science over time. Many 21st-century Buddhists view science as complementary to their beliefs, although the philosophical integrity of such Buddhist modernism has been challenged.^[12] While the classification of the material world by the ancient Indians and Greeks into air, earth, fire, and water was more metaphysical, and figures like Anaxagorasquestioned certain popular views of Greek divinities, medieval Middle Eastern scholars empirically classified materials.^[13]

Religion and science themselves were not viewed in the past as they are today as two separate spheres of human interest.  The early concepts of elements as earth, water, air, fire, void often seem more religious than scientific to us now for a good reason, imo.

Edited May 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

am not sure her observations really agree to the science on persons with split hemisphere brains.

What do you believe will happen if communication between the brain halves is reestablished?

While not split brain, I find her experience quite fascinating.

 

Edited May 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

I really need to be doing other things, but I found this when I searched on “split brain two minds”…in reading a very brief summary on split brain syndrome, my mind started going off on ways the two halves could communicate through the body and other stuff, so I had to go looking…

https://www.uva.nl/shared-content/uva/en/news/press-releases/2017/01/split-brain-does-not-lead-to-split-consciousness.html#?cb
 

Quote

To the researchers’ surprise, the patients were able to respond to stimuli throughout the entire visual field with all the response types: left hand, right hand and verbally. Pinto: ‘The patients could accurately indicate whether an object was present in the left visual field and pinpoint its location, even when they responded with the right hand or verbally. This despite the fact that their cerebral hemispheres can hardly communicate with each other and do so at perhaps 1 bit per second, which is less than a normal conversation. I was so surprised that I decide repeat the experiments several more times with all types of control.’     

According to Pinto, the results present clear evidence for unity of consciousness in split-brain patients. ‘The established view of split-brain patients implies that physical connections transmitting massive amounts of information are indispensable for unified consciousness, i.e. one conscious agent in one brain. Our findings, however, reveal that although the two hemispheres are completely insulated from each other, the brain as a whole is still able to produce only one conscious agent. This directly contradicts current orthodoxy and highlights the complexity of unified consciousness.’

In the coming period, Pinto plans to conduct research on more split-brain patients to see whether his findings can be replicated. ‘These patients, who are rapidly decreasing in numbers, are our only way to find out what happens when large subsystems in the brain no longer communicate with each other. This phenomenon raises important questions that cannot be investigated in healthy adults because we have no technique to isolate large subsystems in healthy brains.’

Also:

Quote

 The main issue concerns the first-person perspective of a split-brain patient. Does a split-brain harbor a split consciousness or is consciousness unified? The current consensus is that the body of evidence is insufficient to answer this question, and different suggestions are made with respect to how future studies might address this paucity. In addition, it is suggested that the answers might not be a simple yes or no but that intermediate conceptualizations need to be considered.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11065-020-09439-3

Not read this yet, but putting it here so I don’t forget…hopefully.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393221002402

It would seem that a definition of consciousness or rather the experience of consciousness is not as clear as it should be before drawing massive conclusions about consciousness.

Edited May 7, 2024 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I was referring to the the state of western humanity from the fall of the Roman empire to about the time of the reformation give or take a few hundred years.

That is most definitely not the dark ages. You've fallen for protestant revisionist history

If there was a dark age, it would be from the fall of the Roman Empire until Charlemagne.

You can't look at the culture of the Middle Ages and call it dark. There were amazing things going on in architecture, music, poetry, philosophy, theology, etc.

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:37 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you chose nihilism?

One can be an atheist and not be a nihilist.

 

On 5/5/2024 at 10:37 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

That saddens me.

It saddens me that you believe in an imaginary being as well as a religion that is obviously not what it claims to be.

On 5/5/2024 at 10:37 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Fortunately, God has made some provisions for just about everyone. Things will turn out better than your current atheism allows for- but you could've had so much more.

 

I doubt there is any more after this life.  If there is a god I am sure such a powerful being does not demand obedience and abject worship and will be very forgiving given it gave us little to go on.  But if there is a life after this one I am fairly certain it is nothing like Mormonism explains it as nor really any world religion.  Nobody really knows.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

You're missing the point of @mfbukowski comment (an all too common occurrence when reading a Wittgensteinian critique.

There is "reality" as described by science, and there is "reality" as it is experienced. They are two different things and part of different language games. The former involves the material science, the latter involves human experience. Apologists and critics alike constantly confuse the two, and they act as if you can describe a bowl of cereal by reading the list of ingredients on the cardboard cereal box.

Or as William James put it- the difference between a "Steak Dinner" on a menu or the sizzling deliciousness that appears on your table, felt by all senses one has.

Unless you are a Vegan of course. 

They are gastronomic sola scriptura Protestants  😆

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:24 PM, Calm said:

I am not sure I am going to express well enough this reservation I have about the usefulness of the physical realm experiments to identify spiritual forces, etc even if matter as defined by JS, but here goes.

There seems to be an assumption in these experiments that spirit whatever are just more of the same physical elements, iow, the spirit realm plays by the same rules as the physical realm.  I think I get why….because the assumption is physical matter behaves a limited number of ways and interactions can only occur within these limits.  It is like refusing to define God as outside of time because then how could he affect inside of time (so to speak, too lazy to be precise here).

But what if the spirit realm is fundamentally different in some way…perhaps its unifying force is a type of consciousness and all interactions between spirit and physical will have a purpose to that interaction, or perhaps something else beyond the comprehension of mortal men is involved in activating interaction…think of it as two universes that can only intersect when intentional forces are applied to connect them and God sets the rules for using these forces.  If it didn’t serve the purpose of God to expose these interactions, if one assumes there is a mind behind these interactions, can one say with certainty God or whatever the mind is couldn’t simply not engage anytime he/they/it are aware of the potential for being observed?

I get that the macro observations of miracles and placebos allegedly is enough to cover this type of interaction, but I honestly don’t see how one could control variables enough or understand all the behaviours, internal and external that take place at this level of human behaviour in order to say “nope, nothing different between these two”.

Iused to speculate the spirits went to another dimension or alternate universe between death and resurrection.  That may be Star Trek influencing me.