A Psychologist Explains why Science does not communicate with Religion or Philosophy

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You mean "try the experiment on the word" and see if it bears good fruit in your life? Seems pretty scientific to me.

Hardly.

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

How do you figure?

Because the so called witness of the spirit is now knowing in the way the word is used.

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would say that they've tried the experiment on the word and it has born fruit. Those are the testimonies I hear. Experiment-->Fruit-->Testimony

As have millions of other believers in religions that conflict with yours.  You all cannot be correct.

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

\

 

You should put quotes around that as it is a copyrighted song. 😋

Ok

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You only live life doing what you want to do. Yeah, I get it.

No. I do not live life doing only what I want to do. I have a moral compass and methods for determining morals and values that don't require me to obey man made rekigous systems.

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

No, you send yourself out everyday to tell the Saints how foolish they are to believe and try to convince them of the "superiority" of science. Your kind of a "Science Missionary to Mormons"... don't fight it, own it.

🤙

No dude I do not. This is pretty much the only place I debate these kind of things with believers.  I have a number of active LDS friends who tell me how badly they want to "help" me back into the believing flock.  I just smile and tell them I appreciate their concern.  I don't try to convince them to leave Mormonism or theism.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

No it is not.  Science is a methodology.  Are scientists biased?  Sure. All humans are. But science does not expect you to obey their "commandments" or teach that you may burn in hell for rejecting the theory of evolutions.  Nor does it seek to impose its theories on others because they think, without evidence, that some supernatural being is telling them this, that or the some other thing. I like discussing things with you but this line of argument you are making is nonsense.

So tell me, why is the result of my searching, which includes prayers, study, pondering and mediation wrong about Mormonism and religion in general? 

 

Quote

But science does not expect you to obey their "commandments" or teach that you may burn in hell for rejecting the theory of evolutions. 

Of course you must follow their commandments of the methodology to classify "correct" data from "incorrect", insufficient or tainted data.

I have never heard of a sane LDS person saying you will burn in hell for believing in evolution, but if they did, the belief must give themselves some SUBJECTIVE motivation for believing that, perhaps because psychologically it makes them feel better about their superiority with God, just as for many the BELIEF in science makes THEM feel superior to the stupid religionists.

Quote

Nor does it seek to impose its theories on others because they think, without evidence, that some supernatural being is telling them this, that or the some other thing.

This puts YOUR definition of evidence ahead of the psychological evidence that I am looking at, which indicates that YOUR position on YOUR understanding of YOUR definition of science all of which, as is true for all of us, gives us "something" - some reason - to accept ANY and EVERY belief we decide to accept.

Remember Alma32

That which is "SWEET" to you is TRUTH for YOU.   I see that as a religious statement as well as a psychological statement.

Belief in the Atonement for example gives us comfort that all we feel guilty about can be forgiven.

Science gives us certainty because now we have what is defined as "evidence" - by science- and therefore it is TRUE!  hallelujah brother!

But which is "really true"?  Read Alma 32 for the details,  IMO.  Philosophically AND psychologically one has to conclude that it is YOUR human subjective experience which defines what is true for you.   Hence Postmodernism.  Truth is relative to the person and his/her human EXPERIENCE which affects their beliefs.

Quote

So tell me, why is the result of my searching, which includes prayers, study, pondering and mediation wrong about Mormonism and religion in general? 

That is exactly what NO ONE can tell you - except your own personal feelings.   THAT is the "subjective" which I see as THE answer to all human experience, but I cannot tell you what is most important to you- or as Oprah would say ,  "your truth".

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

As have millions of other believers in religions that conflict with yours.  You all cannot be correct.

Of course they can be.

Do cultural values all agree with each other world wide?   Can they all be wrong or right for everyone?

The answer is that it seems to ME that that is what you are not understanding.

I see the "subjective" as more important than the "objective".

That's where we all "live" after all.

You apparently see ONE way to "TRUTH" while I see many.   Whatever turns you on, dude!  

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course you must follow their commandments of the methodology to classify "correct" data from "incorrect", insufficient or tainted data.

That is totally and utterly irrelevant to my point. Religion has rules that we are told to follow or we will be punished. Evangelical Christians told me as a believing Mormon I was going to burn in hell because I did not get the correct theological Jesus.  Were they right?  They think they were and they based it on the personal testimony they have in their dogma.

 

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never heard of a sane LDS person saying you will burn in hell for believing in evolution, but if they did, the belief must give themselves some SUBJECTIVE motivation for believing that, perhaps because psychologically it makes them feel better about their superiority with God,

I did not say that any LDS person has said I or anyone else will burn in hell for believing evolution.  But I was just told by @ZealouslyStrivingthat I was headed for the telestial kingdom because as a former believing, temple endowed high priest I have rejected Mormonism.  Is he right?  How can we tell?  Based on where my personal revelation has led me I think he is wrong.  We cannot both be right can we?

 

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

just as for many the BELIEF in science makes THEM feel superior to the stupid religionists.

I can only speak for myself and I do not feel at superior or smarter than someone who is religious. Well I do feel smarter than some of the rabid Christian Nationalist types.  But I don't feel that way about the people I debate with here. I do not feel that about you. In fact I feel pretty dumb when we talk about human experience, perceptions, philosophy and so on.

 

One of the things I have learned is I really only know a lot about a few things. I know a lot about tax law because for 36 years i have spent most my waking hours during the work week with tax law. I know a lot about Mormonism and other religions becasue I have studied them. I know a lot about endurance cycling and training for endurance cycling events. I am not a scientist and while I have read more science over the past decade I still have to rely on the experts that are scientists.  Same with philosophy. I have to rely on others to help me understand it.

 

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Remember Alma32

Yes.

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That which is "SWEET" to you is TRUTH for YOU.   I see that as a religious statement as well as a psychological statement.

Ok. I think we have arrived at this point before.

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Belief in the Atonement for example gives us comfort that all we feel guilty about can be forgiven.

Science gives us certainty because now we have what is defined as "evidence" - by science- and therefore it is TRUE!  hallelujah brother!

But which is "really true"?  Read Alma 32 for the details,  IMO.  Philosophically AND psychologically one has to conclude that it is YOUR human subjective experience which defines what is true for you.   Hence Postmodernism.  Truth is relative to the person and his/her human EXPERIENCE which affects their beliefs.

That is exactly what NO ONE can tell you - except your own personal feelings.   THAT is the "subjective" which I see as THE answer to all human experience, but I cannot tell you what is most important to you- or as Oprah would say ,  "your truth".

 

As I have said before I like this approach.  But it still leaves me wondering what my state will be in the after life if by the very slim chance, IMO, Joseph Smith and Mormonism really is the true path, but I die rejecting it. 

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course they can be.

Do cultural values all agree with each other world wide?   Can they all be wrong or right for everyone?

The answer is that it seems to ME that that is what you are not understanding.

I see the "subjective" as more important than the "objective".

That's where we all "live" after all.

You apparently see ONE way to "TRUTH" while I see many.   Whatever turns you on, dude!  

Like I said I like this approach but this is really not what most religions that make truth claims about how we should live, what we should believe and so on, and the impact that has on us if we really to continue after this life, believe or teach.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Like I said I like this approach but this is really not what most religions that make truth claims about how we should live, what we should believe and so on, and the impact that has on us if we really to continue after this life, believe or teach.

This is a perfect example of what this thread is about.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262048804/the-blind-spot/

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a perfect example of what this thread is about.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262048804/the-blind-spot/

I just read the summary. The book looks interesting. I certainly agree the lived human experience needs to be taken into account in "part of our search for objective truth."  

I think this book tries to take the human experience into account as well in our search for truth:  The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Like I said I like this approach but this is really not what most religions that make truth claims about how we should live, what we should believe and so on, and the impact that has on us if we really to continue after this life, believe or teach.

So what?

Why should you believe what others do?  

Find one that fits what you believe, make up your own, or just shrug your shoulders and do something else.

I've been through a few myself.   Catholicism, Zoroastrianism, Stoicism, Buddhism, B'hai - and others which I found seriously important for the ideal paradigm for me.

All worked somewhat,but I found LDS- AS I INTERPRET IT presenting the best paradigm that I have found so far.

I know that God or"The Universe" speaks to me through this paradigm.   As an allegory, I find it works perfectly for me.  I cannot find a better allegory than to emulate Christ to become as perfect a human as I can, and teach my family what I find most importation.

Per Alma 32, it is the best paradigm invented by humans, since also God is a human, also part of the allegory.

I don't care what others were taught or believe at all.

That's THEIR problem, but I at least try to pass on what works for me, because that IS actually part of my interpretation of what is "sweet" to me.

[mfbukowski]

@Teancum

I cannot imagine that a Being filling the definitions of what a "God" should be will punish anyone who does their very very best to follow their faith as they see it.

And for LDS folks who believe in a harsh God, they can always think of how bad the Telestial Kingdom will be,while those who imagine God as merciful and loving Being will see it as I believe He is, Our Father who art in heaven.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

they can always think of how bad the Telestial Kingdom will be

Which is gosh darn wonderful…if you pay attention to scripture (it is a heaven of glory, not damnation)

Edited May 14, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Which is gosh darn wonderful…if you pay attention to scripture (it is a heaven of glory, not damnation)

Where according to @ZealouslyStriving you will be barred from living with and continuing earthly friendships and relationships?

[ZealouslyStriving]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where according to @ZealouslyStriving you will be barred from living with and continuing earthly friendships and relationships?

Go back and reread my posts. Living with, yes, as those there will be separate and single. Friendships obviously are possible, if they end up where you are at. But like I said, friendship with the wife of your mortal sojourn is a far cry from enjoying a martial relationship with her.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Go back and reread my posts. Living with, yes, as those there will be separate and single. Friendships obviously are possible, if they end up where you are at. But like I said, friendship with the wife of your mortal sojourn is a far cry from enjoying a martial relationship with her.

In what way? And how is a parent child relationship different? What good is dealing exactly?

Edited May 14, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In what way? And how is a parent child relationship different? What good is dealing exactly?

Is this an honest query? You really see no difference between a martial relationship and your wife now being someone you just visit with??

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Is this an honest query? You really see no difference between a martial relationship and your wife now being someone you just visit with??

I really don’t know what sealing offers. That’s correct. With my spouse? What is a martial relationship? Are you talking about sex? Does that happen in heaven? My wife is my deepest truest friend and I’m trying to understand what would change by having a “celestial” vs “terrestrial” relationship with her. Same with my kids. What’s different about the celestial vs terrestrial relationship with my kids that makes sealing necessary or desirable? If there is a God, I’ve got major issues with how She runs things and I have no desire to perpetuate this system on countless others so nothing about Godhood holds any appeal for me. So what is it about eternal families and temple dealings that makes a difference in the next life?

Edited May 14, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Is this an honest query? You really see no difference between a martial relationship and your wife now being someone you just visit with??

What perhaps is missing in your paradigm is that" EVERY knee shall bend and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ."

Everyone, on the other side if not before will see the SUN of God (no typo!) and it will be so obvious to EVERYONE that Jesus IS Christ, the anointed one.

It will be like looking directly at the sun and denying its brilliance and power, its warmth and the fact that it is the source of LIGHT and LIFE in our universe.   Our universe will suddenly be clearly an imitation of the REAL REALTY that surrounds us, but that we do not see due to the weaknesses of our presently human bodies.

WE will no longer be "Seeing things through a MIRROR DARKLY (a mirror because what we see is made by our own brain/mind) BUT THEN FACE TO FACE.

It will be obvious to EVERYONE except the sons of perdition who deny the obvious reality that the SUN OF GOD IS God! "The sun with healing in HIS WINGS"

And that includes a wife, a buddy, all relatives OR ELSE THE WORLD WOULD BE A WASTE at the Lord's second coming!

But this, for me, is the way I see it and is one of the prime reasons I joined the church.

I now have two children who have become inactive, one of which went on a mission.  They are good, honest and gentle people but church is "not for them"

My paradigm tells me that we will ALL be together finally in the end, where they will see the truth, undeniably.  Doesn't bother me a bit.  I once went through a phase in which I bought into the communist view that "religion is the opiate of the masses"

But I got better, and so will they. 

 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where according to @ZealouslyStriving you will be barred from living with and continuing earthly friendships and relationships?

I think he is wrong about separation.  I trust God’s promise all heavens will be glorious and how could it be if we are separated from those we love or those we could love?

I think we have a different view of community, much more individualistic, than those who wrote the ancient scriptures so language about mansions, etc sound more exclusive to us than is intended.  And I think ancient and modern revelations are chipping away at the misconceptions line upon line, which mean some get written into our scripture, but in time we will receive light through pure glass and then with nothing between us and God’s light at all.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

will be obvious to EVERYONE except the sons of perdition who deny the obvious reality that the SUN OF GOD IS God! "The sun with healing in HIS WINGS"

Since they knowingly deny, my guess is it will be obvious to them as well, they just hate God so much they won’t give God any sign of recognition.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If there is a God, I’ve got major issues with how She runs things and I have no desire to perpetuate this system on countless others so nothing about Godhood holds any appeal for me. So what is it about eternal families and temple dealings that makes a difference in the next life?

Take it for what it is - FAITH.   HOPE for things UNSEEN.  It is a paradigm through which one relies on the mercy of the Lord toward his CHILDREN, and I would argue the best paradigm humanity - since God IS a super-Human- has ever come up with.

I take it with a grain of salt- sometimes  a few pounds of salt-  to see the words for what they are- squiggles on a page to be interpreted by what the Light of Christ/ Spirit,  tells us personally.

What difference the belief makes IN THIS WORLD is what I care about, and that is learning how to deal with at least ONE member of the "rest of humanity" and especially those I love.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I really don’t know what sealing offers. That’s correct. With my spouse? What is a martial relationship? Are you talking about sex? Does that happen in heaven? My wife is my deepest truest friend and I’m trying to understand what would change by having a “celestial” vs “terrestrial” relationship with her. Same with my kids. What’s different about the celestial vs terrestrial relationship with my kids that makes sealing necessary or desirable? If there is a God, I’ve got major issues with how She runs things and I have no desire to perpetuate this system on countless others so nothing about Godhood holds any appeal for me. So what is it about eternal families and temple dealings that makes a difference in the next life?

By using the terms “wife” and “truest,” it seems you operate under a functional covenant of some kind, and with some degree of formality. The sealing is a covenant offered by God to unify the parties as described a few times in the New Testament and then latter-day scripture.

There’s a talk in General Conference describing this in terms of a vertical sealing between an individual and God and a horizontal sealing between spouses https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/34carpenter?lang=eng . By extension, this covenant can exist between parents and children, between and among families, generations, friends, "Church of the Firstborn," etc.

No sealing exists if God is not in these relationships, so to answer your question best, you would need to be open to exploring a covenant relationship with God.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

By using the terms “wife” and “truest,” it seems you operate under a functional covenant of some kind, and with some degree of formality. The sealing is a covenant offered by God to unify the parties as described a few times in the New Testament and then latter-day scripture.

So in the terrestrial kingdom, I’ll still have a covenant relationship with my wife, I just get to leave god out of it?

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There’s a talk in General Conference describing this in terms of a vertical sealing between an individual and God and a horizontal sealing between spouses https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/34carpenter?lang=eng . By extension, this covenant can exist between parents and children, between and among families, generations, friends, "Church of the Firstborn," etc.

No sealing exists if God is not in these relationships, so to answer your question best, you would need to be open to exploring a covenant relationship with God.

Since I’ve been there and done that and saw no discernible advantage to a sealing, perhaps you could describe what real tangible benefits you’ve experienced that I am missing out on? And perhaps why your god made the distinction soooo subtly small in my life that I failed to notice any benefits? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So in the terrestrial kingdom, I’ll still have a covenant relationship with my wife, I just get to leave god out of it?

Since I’ve been there and done that and saw no discernible advantage to a sealing, perhaps you could describe what real tangible benefits you’ve experienced that I am missing out on? And perhaps why your god made the distinction soooo subtly small in my life that I failed to notice any benefits? 

RE: Q1, Technically, all “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead.” All such contracts have an end when those who were involved in them are dead, but I think it reasonable to assume that some resurrected people in the terrestrial kingdom try to imitate them, but any arrangement they can come up with, lacking sufficient power, are non-everlasting and so eventually nullified.

RE: Q2, to answer you best, you would need to be open to exploring a covenant relationship with God. Or re-exploring one you may have had. You may wish to review some of the basics from the last General Conference for some of the real tangible benefits available to everyone, namely a personal endowment of Christ’s power and help obtained in the world to no other degree: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/57nelson?lang=eng , and the three talks with “Covenant(s)” in their title.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/13/2024 at 8:37 AM, Teancum said:

You all cannot be correct.

Of course we can.

What gives people comfort may also irritate others.  You are still not getting it.

Religion is medicinal.   One works for one but not for another. You still do not see it.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course we can.

What gives people comfort may also irritate others.  You are still not getting it.

Religion is medicinal.   One works for one but not for another. You still do not see it.

I see it when I talk with you. I don't what I discuss with many others. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Moroni 7:

"16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."