DigitalShadow

Faith is somewhat of a foreign concept to me, my beliefs require evidence to support them (spiritual or otherwise). You can say that it is a bad thing that I don't have faith, but I could just as easily be a Catholic or a Scientologist if my beliefs were so easily placed.

You say that we need God's influence and for Him to guide us, but that is not what I have observed in this world. I have done quite well for myself with no help or communication with God. Maybe that message would resonate with me if I weren't doing well in life or felt like something was missing, but it just doesn't feel like I need a higher power guiding me. I say this not out of arrogance but out of honesty. I can't change how I feel any more than you can change how you feel. I very much appreciate your empathy and determination to help me accept the Gospel, but so far it has simply not shown itself to be true to me. I remain open to the possibility, but until then, the scientific method has already proven to be a valuable tool in determining truth.

It is unfortunate that you are so violently close-minded to other viewpoints. I agree that we are getting no where and should move on.

Yes, the scientific method doesn't apply to all circumstances, including the ones you just brought up but none of those have to do with determining the truth of theories which the scientific is absolutely valid for. The scientific method has proven itself to be a reliable method for determining truth, which is why I use it. Yes we all have feelings, but what makes us intelligent beings is the fact that we are able to use reason and logic to go beyond simply acting directly on our feelings like other animals.

When you have many different people believing different things based on feelings isn't that the definition of "opinion"? That was the sense I was using "opinion" in.

And saying that if only they followed the Gospel more, they would have accomplished more is just as arrogant of a statement, glad we agree. I hate to break it to you, but all religions are man-made and all religions claim to be divinely inspired. Saying that yours is so special that it can't be 'lumped' with others is a statement out of arrogance and ego. Whether one or more of them truly is divinely inspired is purely a matter of opinion and calling someone stupid for accepting or rejecting a particular religion is a rediculous claim.

Sometimes I look back and think about Newton, Einstein and Tesla and imagine how much more they could have accomplished if they weren't confined to thinking within the bounds of religion. Then I laugh at myself for presuming to know what magic combination produced such genius and being so arrogant as to think that I knew how to improve upon it. :)

Read over my post carefully and show me exactly where I say either of them were atheists. All I'm saying is that as far as any studies I've seen have shown, theism and devoutness to whatever God they choose to worship has little to no impact on aptitude for science. You can point out famous atheist and christian scientists all day and it doesn't mean anything other than that some people believe in God and some people don't and their belief doesn't have anything to do with their scientific endeavors. You also made no comment on the meat of my post other than misinterpreting it, if you have contrary evidence, I'd honestly love to hear it :)

I consider you a friend as well, and while I know we don't usually agree on issues, I enjoy our discussions :)

Exactly where we are right now? As far as I know there is no correlation between theism and scientific aptitude. In fact I've heard of studies that more scientists are atheists than in the general population but I would gladly retract my statement if you could point to any evidence to the contrary.

By the time I was done with that rant I realized I was being a bit harsh which is why I apologized at the end, but I still think that it is not a "flaw" that the scientific method does not include a step for asking what God thinks, it is a willful omission that improves method in general. If every scientist stopped to ask what God thought and let that affect their findings, you would have a mish-mash of conflicting religious ideology supporting whatever the scientist initially thought rather than the conclusion that the results pointed to. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove all preconceptions (including God) and objectively test theories for their accuracy. Throwing God into the method practically negates the whole thing because there are millions of people who believe they are talking to God but getting conflicting messages... there is no reliable consistent way to "talk" to God and so it doesn't belong anywhere in science.

The fact that she felt good enough to come to you with these concerns speaks volumes to your parenting skills. I don't have kids, but I know many a parent who would punish their kids just for expressing such thoughts and that drives them away faster than anything. I wish you and your daughter the best of luck. Regardless of what she ends up believing, I respect and admire your approach.

And I am sorry for saying so, but I believe your expressed viewpoint is a better description of the problem. The scientific method is flawed? How exactly is it flawed in your expert opinion? Using this method humans have created all the modern luxuries you now enjoy and you casually dismiss it as "flawed" because some of the conclusions it produces do not fit in with your world view? What do you propose as the new way of gaining knowledge in this world? Find your local preacher, listen to him, read his proposed scriptures and then pray about it until finally get warm fuzzy feelings telling you he is right? If praying is such an accurate method, why can't someone who has had no contact with missionaries or preachers simply pray and get consistent results? Science is constantly looking to expand our knowledge with observations, experiments and theories always taken new information into account, regardless of preconceptions we may have. The scientific method is what led us out of the superstitious dark ages where people were declared to be witches and of the devil because they were different in some way. I'm sorry but simply "asking God" and then following the answer you receive requires a suspension of logic given the number of people that ask God and get inconsistent answers and the number of man-made religions that have existed throughout the years. Religion and science conflict because they require two different ways of thinking to work and there is no way to follow the scientific method to religious conclusions. Let's try really quick. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. Which religion (if any) is correct? 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. There are a lot of smart people in the LDS religion, let's go with the theory that it is correct. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? Assuming the church is true, anyone honestly seeking God will receieve the truth. 4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. I have attempted to personally ask God which church is true in order to find out which church is true. God has remained silent and either does not exist or refuses to answer. Furthermore many of my fellow man claim to talk to God and that he gives an entirely different message to them. You can justify the results any way that you want and claim that God does not work that way and that I just need more faith before God will share the truth with me, but thousands of years ago people were just as sure that Zeus existed which leads me to believe that if you have enough faith in anything, you will get warm fuzzy reaffirming feelings that it does exist. While there is nothing wrong with believing those feelings, it is far from a logical endeavour. Okay rant over. Sorry but I'm just a bit sensitive to people mocking science right now and I'm tired of all the misconceptions about the scientific method floating around this thread.

Science is the process of examining the world around us through observations and experiments. Religion is the process of answering philosophical questions through non-scientific means. By definition, religion requires a suspension of logic to accept, otherwise it would just be another branch of science. Occasionally religious revelation and scientific knowledge come into conflict, to predend they never do is more than a little naive. In those instances you are to use your own judgement and reasoning skills (that God presumably gave you) to determine the truth for yourself. Whether the knowledge comes from scientific or religious methods, remember that both go through man and man is most certainly fallable. Examine the evidence (both spiritual and physical) and think for yourself.

I agree that parties will be the downfal of this country. Before I moved to Utah, I lived in a town where "republican" and "conservative" were practically insults. Now that I've lived in Utah for a few years, I've learned that people here think "democrat" and "liberal" are considered insults here. I personally don't particularly subscribe to either political ideology but I find the increasing hostility between the two groups very disturbing.

I can't help but think you completely missed my point somehow. I am well aware that there are many people who are religious which is not a reason to become religious in itself, but does lead me to believe there is a possibility I am missing something which is why I'm here investigating right now. I don't blindly follow anyone, scientists, academics and priests included. I examine evidence and decide for myself what the most likely truth is and even then it is only provisional. If I see more evidence for another theory I will accept that as the likely truth.

Monumental climate change has occured throughout history and there is probably little we can do about it when it happens, but you still have not given a logical argument as to how that leads to the conclusion that it is impossible for us to instigate climate change and we therefore shouldn't worry about it. I agree with you to the extent that "environmentalism" is taken to wacky extremes in many places, but I believe you are alltogether too paranoid about "communism" and people trying to take away your rights.

No offense taken, interestingly enough I am a current programmer and system engineer and I disagree with your decision on my conclusion. Assuming something is impossible because we do not have the technology for it right now doesn't get us very far. With a learning software model and fine enough robitics, I think it is reasonable to think that someday we could have machines capable of recreating aproximations of themselves with changes and that system leading to something that looks nothing like the original model and is more adapted to its environment over millions of years. In any case I was merely pointing out that believing you are being rational while disagreeing with many experts in their respective fields is a "red flag." Not to say you should blindly follow experts, but it couldn't hurt to re-evaluate the evidence once in a while. I accept the theory of evolution, not because I was told to or because many scientists do, but because of the overwhelming evidence I have seen for it, some of which I have attempted to share here. To answer your question, I do not belong to a church, but I go to the LDS church with my wife from time to time. Also, I have already asked a deity and they haven't seen fit to respond yet, so I go with the evidence :)

I am looking at it rationally, and I think you really need to take your own advice. Claiming to have the "rational" highground while disagreeing with just about every biologist on the planet is a pretty big red flag to begin with. I have presented evidence for evolution, but instead of addressing it, you go off on a tangent about 'higher lifeforms'. I answer your question to the best of my ability and you seem to have completely ignored the answer. First of all, modern evolutionary theories have absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's original research. Darwin merely proposed the idea and really had no idea at the time the mechanisms involved in it. Now I will try again to explain this to you in a simplified manner. -DNA has a chance to contain mutations when it is transcribed -Mutations that are beneificial give the organism a higher chance of reproducing -Neutral mutation (the majority of them) do not affect chances of reproducing -Negative mutations give the organism a lower chance of reproducing Over time, the genes of the organism become more "complex" through this method with no outside hand guiding it. To address your example, a computer program lacks the complexity of a living organism and the means to reproduce. As computers become more and more complicated, we could come closer to creating a true AI and give it hardware capable of creating versions of itself with modifications. Leave that alone on a planet for millions of years and it could very well be a race of sentient machines nothing like how you left them.

Yes, these cycles have occurred eons before man existed, but that doesn't mean we can simply blame every change in the environment on them without investigating the possible interference we're creating. So because Al Gore may have lied and exaggerated claims, global climate change is impossible? I agree with you completely that there are global warming zealots out there willing to distort facts to further their agenda and I dislike them as much as you, but that doesn't mean you have to be an anti global warming zealot. All I'm saying is that it's possible and worth investigating rather than just doing that is best for the market regardless of possible consequences.

'Higher' is an incredibly subjective term and really doesn't have much meaning in this context. Is a duck a 'higher lifeform' than a squirrel? Evolution is not a ladder to 'advancing' lifeforms, it is a mechanism for lifeforms to change based on the pressures of their environment. In the process, some branch off and take different evolutionary paths but to say that one is a 'higher' lifeform than another is a meaningless judgement call probably driven by ego. I've already explained some of the evidence for evolution to the best of my ability. If you really want to ignore it all and ask strangely worded questions, I suggest you take it up with a biologist who would probably do better at correcting your misconceptions.

Then you should probably talk to more Biologists.

If you're right, there is nothing to worry about. If you're wrong, we're contributing to our own extinction. Forgive me if I don't simply take your "expert" opinion that it is not possible for humans to have a global impact on climate rather than the scientists who have reason to believe that it is possible. Yes, there is dispute in the scientific community over global climate change and the reasons behind it, but for now what is so wrong with erring on the side of caution? And one more thing, even assuming the Earth is a gift from God made specially for us, why are you so opposed to treating that gift with some respect? From my point of view, that is what Earth Day is about, respecting the planet that supports our existance.

That is the unfortunate impression I got as well.

I don't think there is an objective answer to that question. People who are LDS will say they are right and people who are FLDS will say they are right. As with all religious choices it is a personal decision.