One morality, not many

[cryophil]

Humans crave meaning and a set of mores to abide by together. Hopefully in peace.

Some here have said say that science can only say what possibilities are there, not which are moral or correct or good. It's said that these can only come from theology (and ultimately God).

However, Western, Eastern and other theologies/traditions have many disagreements and do not merge. They differ greatly about what morals/commandments/rules are. There is no unified religious tradition.

Science has a unified front. There are not Eastern biology and Western biology. There is biology. There is physics. Classes in Asia teach chemistry principles the same as do Western chemistry. Science has universality. Science produces. Religion bickers.

In theology there is little dialogue between its different traditions, perhaps from time to time; but not a merger. As humanity we do not have a single unified moral tradition. While the history of scientific and mathematical discoveries are scattered all across the globe, yet, there aren’t different parallel scientific traditions. As humanity we have a single history and a single tradition of science. Every basic biology class on the globe will teach the same principles. Not the case if you are taking a basic philosophy class.

There is in science an aspect of universality that we don’t find in theology. But so what? We can't get morals from science, you may say.

To say that science has nothing of value to give to the understanding and production of morals & ethics belies this fundamental universality. If religious traditions are so arguable as to produce major rifts, then how can it possibly produce a coherent relative set of morals let alone an absolute sense of morality?

The scientific method is a codification of a specific technique of handling and processing information. Morality is also about information.

Science is also an integrity of process that we as a society hold sacrosanct. It produces understanding of our world, and remains consistent from one experimenter to another.

We don’t end up with five different interpretations on the basic principles of physics. We have a universal set. Yes, there are some aspects of science which disagree, but experiment is the final arbiter.

The disagreements in religious philosophy are fragmented camps, which no one sees as unifying anytime soon. Why not? Because, unlike science where disagreements only exist until the final evidence is in, philosophy is always beholden to individual views of non-reality within reality.

Religious leaders, priest, prophets, preachers, etc are venerated in congregations, camps, per individual taste for their doctrine and sermon. In science, we expect scientists to earn respect. Religious leaders from what I can tell have no expectation of accountability in this way. Scientists subject themselves and their work to repeated scrutiny. And only after their observations, analysis and conclusions have been repeatedly tested by others, can any scientist expect to be taken seriously.

Imagine if we what we do for physics, we did for moral information. Imagine if we could have a moral theory that is not based upon the opinion and camp of a given philosopher.

The scientific method gives us the hope of something we have never had. It gives us the hope of someday finding a moral theory that is the same for all of humanity, rather than a fragmented set of morals varying from civilization to civilization.

[prisonchaplain]

Ironically, many younger people are rejecting the apparent certainty that even science, with its objective research methods and peer review, offer. Instead, post-modern thinking says that nothing is certain or knowable, in an absolute sense. They point to the earth no longer being flat, and to many scientific certainties that get overturned with new discoveries.

In the midst of this uncertainty, I am thankful for Christ, the solid rock, and to the cross, the emblem of my redemption.

[cryophil]

You're both giving examples of my point--religious camps are divided about what constitutes moral truths.

And "changed" what do you mean by basic morals?

Human sacrifice & cannibalism have been practiced by many many cultures, some even to date. Abortion is not seen as murder or wrong in many cultures. The divisions about some of the most grevious morals are striking in modern civilizations. Hence the genocides in Africa and much more.

And changed, regarding your points that science aren't perfect or know everything--I concede that. However, its method provides unity. Its methods provide technology (which are further validation of the theories). Its methods have provided real answers to questions which we thought only religion could answer, but now know was wrong. At many points, previous religious teaching gives way to science fact. 200 years ago, Western theologies believed in a young earth, in a static universe, in absolute time, in creation of man as separate from the animals. These kinds of claims are an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. And the current claims seem to be getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.

Edited May 18, 2012 by cryophil

[cryophil]

I can agree with that... experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, ..., it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed

The problem with this experiment is that it tells us the outcome and yet provides no epistemic validation for knowing if the outcome is what is claimed here.

In other words...Why do we trust that this method is the right one?

I don't know. I used to, but I am not so sure (see below)

- How do you know that these experiences (feelings) are not from inside of you?

They most definitely are. the question is, how can I know the trigger is from an external (essential) source?

- Does the Holy Ghost testify and point as truthful doctrines which contradict Mormonism? For example, polytheism & paganism?

Yes.

The Hindus practice Chakra meditation, one of which is centered in the heart. I've seen descriptions of that where a Hindu describes the experience as, "A feeling of peace seemed to flow into me with a sense of togetherness...I felt very peaceful from inside and also felt heat.”

(see Siddhaloka - Abode of Siddhas )

And this description among many many that show the "burning of the bosom" is actually more intense among some Hindu practioners.

" Often there is heat focused in this area when the chakra is awakening. This may feel like a warm, glowing sensation or a feeling of incandescence, with the chest blazing hot as a furnace."

"for example I feel my heart chakra (on average) a foot extending out from my chest (front and back) and about the size of a basketball. "

"I have had a warming sensation in the middle of my chest for the past two days. "

(See Warm Sensation, Heart Chakra? - ChakraTribe - tribe.net )

Other cultures and religious systems have these same experiences and signs and miracles. Just like the Momrons, the Hindus have the Chakras, some of which have manifestations of elation, lifting and pure knowledge while meditating. For example, during mediation/mantra recitation (prayer), a flame is felt inside of the heart (part of the heart chakra), from which the mantra rings out; and this cooperates with the brow and crown (mind) chakras for realizing the "Clear Light".

Islam has the "hajj experience" and islamic transformation that are essentially just as strong or more than the mormon burning, as exampled by those who feel so emboldened as to commit suicide for their testimony.

Other Christian churches have spiritual manifestations in feelings, tongues and miracles.

When Alma talks about a swelling in your breast, it is like the heart chakra, and mood elevation as describe by Prof J. Haidt, who has seen evidence for a link to oxytocin production in the chest. In other words, this swelling could be triggered for any "seed" and is not useful to help us discern truth.

In the end, it is still divisive.

Edited May 18, 2012 by cryophil

[cryophil]

Human sacrifice & cannibalism are very rare - as rare as those who still believe in a flat earth... yes, there are people who disagree with basic scientific tenants, and yes there are people who disagree with basic morals - the vast majority of the population agrees on the basic morals as illustrated in the link I posted above.

Genocide and murder are not rare. And are tolerated as part of some governments. War is pronounced moral. Capital punishment, abortion, de facto slavery are practiced in third world countries. These are not moral. Slavery and death penalties and war have been supported by Western religions.

[cryophil]

The validation is spiritual experiences...

because I have received information that was unobtainable through my 5 senses. (like being prompted on who needed a phone call, or warned not to drive a certain route, or shown future events etc. etc.)

If you consider anecdotal coincidences that may appear supernatural as evidence, but then are willing to say that science is weak in giving us answers, you're not thinking at all like an engineer.

Telling me you believe that they are unobtainable through your senses is not evidence. You are saying that your faith (in a supernatural power/event) is evidenced by something you believe is supernatural. That's not evidence. That's more belief.

I consider many other groups to be part of tribes, who are lost to us, but not to God, and look forward to that day when all will be united under one banner.

I actually enjoy reading the texts of other religious groups, and have found many similar truths therein...

see for example: How Mormons Are Buddhists & Vice Versa | Mormon Matters

If you want to muddy the doctrinal waters by claiming we are all the same, you have to show why we LDS have a unique claim on authority. You can't have it both ways--we are the one-and-only church with priesthood authority, but everyone has equal truth and access to God. That's what you seem to be doing.

I claimed in the OP that religious philosophies are divided. I stand by that. Just look at the wars between the Hindus and Muslims. And Muslims and Christians. Buddhist too. The Kalachakra Tantra, as I understand it, is a holy war doctrine.

[Guest]

Sure, there is ONE morality. But WHICH ONE? Only God knows for 100% certainty.

Now, from science today (actually, it's from a week ago, I'm in a hurry so I didn't look up the link - I'm sure it's readily google-able):

Coffee is beneficial because it prevents certain diseases and early death.

Okay... so Science just concluded that Coffee is beneficial.

I WILL BET YOU A THOUSAND BUCKS that somebody is going to change that conclusion within the next decade.

Oh, wait, I don't have to wait for the next decade... there are scientists refuting that conclusion today...

So, no, sorry, but science does not have one side of the litmus. Regardless of experiment. So, how is science better?

I submit, ONCE AGAIN, science and religion work hand in hand to explain the mysteries of life. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

Edited May 18, 2012 by anatess

[cryophil]

Sure, there is ONE morality. But WHICH ONE? Only God knows.

Now, from science today (actually, it's from a week ago, I'm in a hurry so I didn't look up the link - I'm sure it's readily google-able):

Coffee is beneficial because it prevents certain diseases and early death.

Okay... so Science just concluded that Coffee is beneficial.

I WILL BET YOU A THOUSAND BUCKS that somebody is going to change that conclusion within the next decade.

Oh, wait, I don't have to wait for the next decade... there are scientists refuting that conclusion today...

So, no, sorry, but science does not have one side of the litmus. Regardless of experiment.

You misunderstand what you think you read. Science concluded nothing. It showed observables, which as evidence support certain claims. Science never closes the door on anything and concludes, "case closed". The dynamics of science, with experment as the arbiter, is the best system we have to gaining facts that are practical and useful.

[cryophil]

most people - the VAST majority of people, are not mass murderers...

True. Most people wouldn't know how to do it.

But God has encouraged it in the Old Testament. Jesus committed it in 3 Nephi by destroying more than a dozen ancient American cities.

As for atheism killing... it is dogma, religious or secular dogma, that is behind killing. Either way, it still shows that theological division causes problems.

[cryophil]

I would say that science is the best system for gaining facts for systems which do not have free will

Neuroscience has shown a lot of evidence that there is no free will. Intent and decision is not, apparently, a conscious exercise. Read up on Libet and then the latest studies on fMRI imaging of "intent" experiments. Get up to speed on your science if you're going to make claims about it.

[cryophil]

not what I believe, what I have personally experienced.... repeatable experiments on being led by the Spirit fall outside the realm of coincidence... if you want the experience, there is an experiment you could do...

How do you fit and explain the heart chakras that others have had which testify that Hinduism is truth?

How do you fit the work on moral elevation by oxytocin production which causes a swelling and burning in the chest, but has nothing to do with religious or other truth?

[cryophil]

I do not consider free will to be the instantaneous fly by the seat of your pants blurt something out reaction... I think choices which come from our innermost conscience take years to develop. The experiments you quote do not disprove free will, they just demonstrate that our choices are not made instantaneously, but are instead created through many years of experience.

Ok, going along with that, if choices arise out of years of experience, then we are masters to previous events, which weren't choices. It regresses all the way back. At the beginning, we were inexperienced. We were material (whether you believe genetic/biological or "intelligences eternal matter"). How did that first choice arise if it takes experience?

The problem you face here is first cause and source. There is no easy way out of it. Talking about co-eternalness and intelligences don't solve it. If everything we do is based on what was accumulated from before (far back and right before), then nothing we do at present is truly choice.

Now, that being said, all neuroscience is doing is confirming what is intuitively obvious.

Personally, I don't think there is determinism or free will. There is "control".

[cryophil]

I am a convert, and have lived with and without the Spirit in my life. Before I joined the church, I experienced all the emotional highs/lows - oxytocin/hormonal/dietary etc. etc. induced feelings...

trust me, the Spirit is a different thing.... (it actually scared me the first time I experienced it... "fear not" is an often repeated phrase within the scriptures ).

"Trust me" is exactly what experimentation is trying to avoid.

The problem is, you have no objective means to validate that someone else who's not only had your pre-convert and post-convert experiences hasn't had another experience beyond yours and "knows" yours is false.

You can't validate it.

This experiment by supernatural means is epistemically flat.

It's also perhaps a little arrogant(?) to presume that you know for a fact that your experience beats out all those across the globe that feel their spiritual experiences are earth-shattering, life-changing events that testify of their wiccan, new-age, islamic or hindu beliefs in complete contradiction to LDS doctrinal and authority claims.

Edited May 18, 2012 by cryophil

[Seminarysnoozer]

The scientific method gives us the hope of something we have never had. It gives us the hope of someday finding a moral theory that is the same for all of humanity, rather than a fragmented set of morals varying from civilization to civilization.

The scientific method would give no hope to the ability to separate whether the moral values come from the human brain that imagines certain beliefs and "fills in the blanks" of certain information to make sense of those perceptions versus the morals that come as directives from a higher being transmitted to the spirit. The reason is that the amount of spirit to mind transmission depends on a persons spirituality or being in tune with the spirit. And that is something that God judges that we cannot judge. It is outside man's ability to determine how in tune any person is to the spirit with any exactness. So, if science mixes in people who are in tune to the spirit with people who are not, the measurement of moral values, if obtainable would not measure God's will. It would only measure the morals of a corrupted, fallen, imaginative, deceiving human perception (mixed in with a little reality).

This is why measuring it by the fruits of those morals is more accurate.

[Guest]

You misunderstand what you think you read. Science concluded nothing. It showed observables, which as evidence support certain claims. Science never closes the door on anything and concludes, "case closed". The dynamics of science, with experment as the arbiter, is the best system we have to gaining facts that are practical and useful.

No, I didn't misunderstand at all. It's a direct quote "From this evidence we conclude..." from the scientist that was talking about it in the Andy Dean show. And that's why I pointed it out...

Because, like you said, science does not close cases. It continues to adjust to new knowledge - line upon line, precept upon precept. It deals with theories (faith) and amass evidence (experience). And this - like I always say - is not in any way conflicting or contradictory to the religious experience - that is, religion applied in the proper manner... not religion applied in like manner as that idiot scientist in the Andy Dean show.

Now, if you combine science with religion... that's when things start to make a lot more sense.

[cryophil]

uncreated = uncaused = free will... it's the uncreated thing that takes you out of the cause/effect net.

Yes, the co-eternal part would be uncaused/uncreated. So how do judge someone differently eons later than you would when in the most primitive form (intelligences)? Because EVERYTHING that happens upon the first moment time begins is determined based on environment and that uncaused makeup/form. Any form or makeup added there after is strictly a combination of what is the original plus environment. And not one of us is responsible for the environment we begin with.

Plus not one of us chose our original self (whether caused or uncaused).

So since we don't chose our original self (agent or not) and we don't choose our original environments, where did choice come from again?

The scientific method would give no hope to the ability to separate whether the moral values come from the human brain that imagines certain beliefs and "fills in the blanks" of certain information to make sense of those perceptions versus the morals that come as directives from a higher being transmitted to the spirit.

What would that matter anyway? If God wanted to reveal what came from him, he can. If not, we just accept it as factual because it works (whatever the source).

The reason is that the amount of spirit to mind transmission depends on a persons spirituality or being in tune with the spirit.

That's a nice opinion, but there's not a sliver of evidence for that. Either way, it really doesn't matter. God will what he will, and when he doesn't, it's all on us. Which is why, since God never reveals evidence of himself, it is on us, using science.

This is why measuring it by the fruits of those morals is more accurate.

That's science. Measure the well-being that actions bring to humanity. Observation which fits a moral hypothesis. I think that is the best way too. I don't see how it even requires defining God.

Now, if you combine science with religion... that's when things start to make a lot more sense.

LOL. Thanks, that's a great laugh.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What would that matter anyway? If God wanted to reveal what came from him, he can. If not, we just accept it as factual because it works (whatever the source).

The definition of "what works" is where the flaw is. "What works" is a moral value, in this category and not revealed in full until we know all the variables, such as spirituality.

If you were to devise a test of character and intuitive nature as opposed to a test of knowledge base and intellectual reasoning ability, how would you design the test? Would you give the subjects facts? No, that would be a test based in intellectual reasoning as opposed to their intuitive reasoning. The best test for that would be to put people in challenging situations and see how the react to the situation, knowing the amount of limited information given, one could demonstrate their true nature. The true nature of an individual that I am talking about, though, is their spiritual nature. And God has the measuring ability as far as that goes. We don't. It can't be measured by us.

[volgadon]

It should also be noted that the most horrible genocides have been committed by atheists...

Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism..."

Vladimir Lenin "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion..."

North Korea is officially atheistic...

To be perfectly honest, sadly, there were probably just as many genocides perpetrated in the past century by religionists than by atheists. It is just that things like the Volhynia massacres and Operation Vistula aren't as well known as Communist atrocities are.

[Traveler]

Human sacrifice & cannibalism are very rare - as rare as those who still believe in a flat earth... yes, there are people who disagree with basic scientific tenants, and yes there are people who disagree with basic morals - the vast majority of the population agrees on the basic morals as illustrated in the link I posted above.

These principles are not as rare as you may think. The thinking behind human sacrifice is very prevalent in Christian theology in what we call the sacrifice and atonement of Christ. Also in many religious moral thinking the very concept of a hero as someone that sacrifices themselves for others.

As to cannibalism - many modern thinkers do not study or understand past attitudes and goals (or should I say morals) of cannibalism - it is not so different from current concepts of "giving blood" and becoming a organ donor.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It was a religious group who killed Jesus, but it is true that atheists have killed orders of magnitude more than other murderous regimes:

"In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987" ~ MURDER BY COMMUNISM

see also: Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

Article | First Things

Stalin's Brutal Faith

etc. etc.

I do not disagree that in recent history communism has been deeply involved in mass murder. But as to percent of populations, there are greater mass murders. One of histories greatest Christian influences (Charlemagne) slaughtered more norther Europeans in efforts to end paganism than died of the dreaded Black Plague.

In addition the near genocide of native Americans within what is now the United States of America is staggering. Of the estimated 40 million native Americans living in what is now the USA less then 4 million remain. It is argued that this was the natural and moral result of "Christians" seeking religious and political freedom - for themselves of course.

Are we any better in establishing our social political agenda that communists? Just over 100 years ago the world's most powerful drug cartel was actively destroying China with opium in what is known in China as a "Century of Shame" - most likely the single most responsible course in history that brought communism to China. This very powerful international drug cartel was operated and controlled by a 20 family organization that were so powerful in western civilization (USA and Europe) that they operated openly flaunting their exploits. As these families destroyed the ruling class in China (paving the way for communism) a young 12 year old boy posed for a pitcher with a gathering of the families of this powerful drug cartel - his name? -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. BTW - there is no historical indication that this international drug cartel ever was disbanded.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Sure, there is ONE morality. But WHICH ONE? Only God knows for 100% certainty.

Now, from science today (actually, it's from a week ago, I'm in a hurry so I didn't look up the link - I'm sure it's readily google-able):

Coffee is beneficial because it prevents certain diseases and early death.

Okay... so Science just concluded that Coffee is beneficial.

I WILL BET YOU A THOUSAND BUCKS that somebody is going to change that conclusion within the next decade.

Oh, wait, I don't have to wait for the next decade... there are scientists refuting that conclusion today...

So, no, sorry, but science does not have one side of the litmus. Regardless of experiment. So, how is science better?

I submit, ONCE AGAIN, science and religion work hand in hand to explain the mysteries of life. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

Good point - we can also ask if humans are the cause of global warming. We scientist are very united about that?

However, in the greater sense I must agree with cryophil for this thread. In the more general sense I have found it much easier to talk with other scientist about points on which we passionately disagree than with other religionist that passionately disagree. And this includes allowing others of such disagreement to live peacefully among them and being able to treat them civilly.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

yes, the atrocities committed by mankind are horrific. I think it is still only a few fanatical leaders who are responsible for this though.

Christianity teaches love, turning the other cheek, thou shalt not murder etc. etc. so I think it is also false to blame the Christian religion - these crimes were committed by people going against the faith they professed to believe.

If we look at all the good Christianity has done for so many people - all of the charities, counseling, community involvement - prosperity and happiness does follow societies with healthy religious organizations.

Christianity promotes life:

PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt

read studies like this and you will agree that faith is good for society...

Pew Forum: Religious people make better citizens, study says

Religious people are 'better neighbors' - USATODAY.com

Page 2: Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

etc. etc. etc.

I wish I could have your faith in human morality but my studies of history indicate just the opposite. That is that even in religion living moral standards seem to be the great exception and not the norm at all.

For example it was 1649 before any "Christian" society on earth passed a law preventing the punishment of death and plunder of property of heretics whose only crime was to have a differing religious opinion. In essence that's one thousand six hundred years of Jesus' teachings before it was thought evil to murder your neighbor that has morals but worships in a different building. Even then the law of 1649 only protected other Christians of different religious sects - guess when the first law was passed by Christians to protect other "non-Christians" from being murdered for their worship?

Again I support cryophil's message in this thread - when in history have scientist threatened the life of any religious person for disagreeing with their point of view? There are always exceptions but for the most part it seems to me that scientist are more concerned with the truth and the society of man than those that tout religion.

The Traveler

[volgadon]

yes, the atrocities committed by mankind are horrific. I think it is still only a few fanatical leaders who are responsible for this though.

I wish it were true. Take for example the Volhynia massacres and Operation Vistula, the general population was very much involved.

[Traveler]

sure scientists have killed people - who do you think made all the weapons of mass destruction?

...

It may interest you to know that I personally worked for several years consulting with the Defense Department in developing classified projects that involved weapons of mass destruction. One particular project resulted in the capabality of placing any of a very large variety of weapons of mass destruction within hours and within 3 feet of any target in the world - completely undected. I was not alone - LDS in general are very well represented in weapon development for the USA in relation to our percent of the population - Several government agencies and contractors involved in such matters utilize BYU as one of their top recruting universities. Somewhat tongue in cheek those in the know often refer to the LDS doing work for the government as the "Mormon Moffia".

The Traveler

[Guest]

What's a Moffia?