How does science fit in with our doctrine?

[HiJolly]

So, folks, here's a question: Can subjective experience PROVE anything? Why/why not?

HiJolly

[ewendels]

It can...to the experiencer.

[sgallan]

"... until his subjective experience proves otherwise." (my addition)

That's cool. I was just commenting on a theistic tendency to make every historical scientist, especially the more modern ones, as some sort of believers in a Higher Power that is basically a judeo-christain definition of God. I have even seen e-mailers saying Sagan had a deathbed conversion, that his widow actually had to come out and debunk (she happened to be there) because it annoyed her. I would guess there is something similar about Hawkings as well, and his opinion on religion is actually rather harsh.

[sgallan]

So, folks, here's a question: Can subjective experience PROVE anything? Why/why not?

It can on faith only. There is no way to prove a God, but conversely there is no way to disprove a God. Hence my signature. I am the same as you.... you deny literally hundreds of faith based belief systems.... and so do I.... plus one more.... yours.

[ewendels]

Since faith is the evidence of things unseen, than to the holder faith is proof. Again, you may not have had any experience with the divine but you probably havn't wanted one. Perhaps one day.

[sgallan]

Honestly even if any religious versions of God could be proven I haven't seen any God yet that I would worship. Most religious Gods seem arbitrary, and the personality of the God seems to be pretty much just like those who worship that God.

But that is just me..... if it works for others I am good with that.

[Vanhin]

Honestly even if any religious versions of God could be proven I haven't seen any God yet that I would worship. Most religious Gods seem arbitrary, and the personality of the God seems to be pretty much just like those who worship that God.

But that is just me..... if it works for others I am good with that.

Sgallan, I don't blame you. A lot of terrible things have been done in the name of religion, and God.

Vanhin

[DigitalShadow]

So, did you watch the movie "Contact", dedicated to Carl Sagan? I think it came out in the 80's. If so, what do you think of the point of the movie?

BTW, I have enjoyed this thread, though it's been a bit irritating, due to the talking past each other that is going on. Hope you have patience to discuss views with me. I have had a great interest in science and religion for many years.

HiJolly

I saw the version of "Contact" that came out in 97, I think that's the same one you're talking about. I thought it was a pretty good movie, it seemed like the point was that some things can only be taken on faith since at the beginning the main character takes criticism for her atheism at the beginning and explains how she doesn't have faith and then at the end is requiring the scientific community to take her experience on faith which they are then skeptical about.

It's been a while since I've seen it and I was younger at the time. That combined with the knowledge that it is based a Carl Sagan novel leads me to believe I might have missed the point since Sagan is a somewhat famous atheist.

I could discuss science and religion all day, other people tend to get easily offended when I give my uncensored viewpoints though :)

[DigitalShadow]

So, folks, here's a question: Can subjective experience PROVE anything? Why/why not?

HiJolly

Quite simply, no. It's debatable whether even objective evidence can "PROVE" anything. Things can be demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence available, but new evidence always has the possibility of negating that conclusion. I don't see the usefulness to clinging to ideas beyond the point where evidence supports them. It is that kind of dogmatic thinking that holds society back as a whole.

[DigitalShadow]

Both men believe in a supreme being.

Just had to bring this up because I here it often that people try to suggest Einstein like he was some sort of conventional religious God believer. Einstein did not believe in a higher power called God in any religious sense of the word, even though he used the term "God". Here is some quotes explaining his position.......

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."

(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

Yeah, I've heard many people debate back and forth about Einstein's beliefs but I really didn't want to get into it and it was not part of the point I was trying to make so I overlooked that :)

[Guest tomk]

I saw the version of "Contact" that came out in 97, I think that's the same one you're talking about. I thought it was a pretty good movie, it seemed like the point was that some things can only be taken on faith since at the beginning the main character takes criticism for her atheism at the beginning and explains how she doesn't have faith and then at the end is requiring the scientific community to take her experience on faith which they are then skeptical about.

It's been a while since I've seen it and I was younger at the time. That combined with the knowledge that it is based a Carl Sagan novel leads me to believe I might have missed the point since Sagan is a somewhat famous atheist.

I could discuss science and religion all day, other people tend to get easily offended when I give my uncensored viewpoints though :)

DS:

I think my particular "frustration" comes from the fact that you are unwilling to trust your feelings as a valid source of communication with God.

My frustration comes from my experience vs your experience, and how they are so completely different. I am trying to build a bridge across that chasm. :) I am not sure if my words, alone, are ever going to be sufficient.

Tom

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

I think my particular "frustration" comes from the fact that you are unwilling to trust your feelings as a valid source of communication with God.

My frustration comes from my experience vs your experience, and how they are so completely different. I am trying to build a bridge across that chasm. :) I am not sure if my words, alone, are ever going to be sufficient.

Tom

More accurately I am wary of trusting my feelings as a sole source of unsubstantiated information. That combined with the fact so far all my feelings point me in the direction that there is no God, leads me to be understandably skeptical of religion. Believe it or not I have learned quite a bit from your words, but it still hasn't changed my personality or skeptical tendencies.

I have not closed myself off to the possibility that the church is true since I don't close myself off to any possibilities because I don't really see the point in it. By that same philosophy though, I don't know that I could ever fully accept the church because it is not in my nature to unquestionably believe in ANYTHING to the exclusion of other theories.

[Guest tomk]

More accurately I am wary of trusting my feelings as a sole source of unsubstantiated information. That combined with the fact so far all my feelings point me in the direction that there is no God, leads me to be understandably skeptical of religion. Believe it or not I have learned quite a bit from your words, but it still hasn't changed my personality or skeptical tendencies.

I have not closed myself off to the possibility that the church is true since I don't close myself off to any possibilities because I don't really see the point in it. By that same philosophy though, I don't know that I could ever fully accept the church because it is not in my nature to unquestionably believe in ANYTHING to the exclusion of other theories.

Thank you for explaining a bit more about "where you are coming from."

I believe you when you say you have learned quite a bit from my words.

I undestand that to mean that my words have helped you to understand my perspective (not that you agree with it, just that you understand it :) ).

I feel the same has been true for me. I understand your perspective better than I once did.

It's good that you have not closed yourelf off the possibility that the Church may be true. If you did that, then I am afraid we would not have much to talk about! That would be unfortunate.

You said:

"...but it still hasn't changed my personality or skeptical tendencies."

and you also said:

I don't know that I could ever fully accept the church because it is not in my nature to unquestionably believe in ANYTHING to the exclusion of other theories.

Okay. Well, at least that is a place to begin. :) :)

Now, from my perspective, I am still of the belief that God must confirm the truth of my words to you. I have no control over that.

So, this means that all I can ever give you, in the end, are my words. My words are not able to replace God's witness to your soul. I will try to keep that in ever present in my mind. I did not receive my witness of God's existence by "words alone" so I should not expect it to be any different with you. All God can do is confirm the truth of the words we are exposed to.

If you are willing, and you seem to be willing to understand because you keep posting, I am willing to enter into a dialogue with you and try to continue helping you to see where I am coming from.

Rather than continue to hijack this thread, would your prefer to PM me, or should we start another thread?

Tom

[DigitalShadow]

Thank you for explaining a bit more about "where you are coming from."

I believe you when you say you have learned quite a bit from my words.

I undestand that to mean that my words have helped you to understand my perspective (not that you agree with it, just that you understand it :) ).

I feel the same has been true for me. I understand your perspective better than I once did.

It's good that you have not closed yourelf off the possibility that the Church may be true. If you did that, then I am afraid we would not have much to talk about! That would be unfortunate.

You said:

"...but it still hasn't changed my personality or skeptical tendencies."

and you also said:

I don't know that I could ever fully accept the church because it is not in my nature to unquestionably believe in ANYTHING to the exclusion of other theories.

Okay. Well, at least that is a place to begin. :) :)

Now, from my perspective, I am still of the belief that God must confirm the truth of my words to you. I have no control over that.

So, this means that all I can ever give you, in the end, are my words. My words are not able to replace God's witness to your soul. I will try to keep that in ever present in my mind. I did not receive my witness of God's existence by "words alone" so I should not expect it to be any different with you. All God can do is confirm the truth of the words we are exposed to.

If you are willing, and you seem to be willing to understand because you keep posting, I am willing to enter into a dialogue with you and try to continue helping you to see where I am coming from.

Rather than continue to hijack this thread, would your prefer to PM me, or should we start another thread?

Tom

I would say that we should start a new thread rather than go through PMs. I know I've offened a few people here, but I also know that even more people have told me that reading through my threads has helped them as well or at the very least they have found it interesting.

I propose that we start a new thread with a disclaimer that it is not for the philosophically faint of heart and that if you are easily offended, feel free not to read :)

Edit: I'll start the thread and get the ball rolling

[Guest tomk]

I would say that we should start a new thread rather than go through PMs. I know I've offened a few people here, but I also know that even more people have told me that reading through my threads has helped them as well or at the very least they have found it interesting.

I propose that we start a new thread with a disclaimer that it is not for the philosophically faint of heart and that if you are easily offended, feel free not to read :)

Edit: I'll start the thread and get the ball rolling

Sounds good. :)

[HiJolly]

I saw the version of "Contact" that came out in 97, I think that's the same one you're talking about. I thought it was a pretty good movie, it seemed like the point was that some things can only be taken on faith since at the beginning the main character takes criticism for her atheism at the beginning and explains how she doesn't have faith and then at the end is requiring the scientific community to take her experience on faith which they are then skeptical about.

It's been a while since I've seen it and I was younger at the time. That combined with the knowledge that it is based a Carl Sagan novel leads me to believe I might have missed the point since Sagan is a somewhat famous atheist.

Wow, it was just 11 years ago? That blows my mind. My age is messing up my remembered time-line, I guess. Anyway, yeah, the one with Jodie Foster. My take-away from the movie was that when the tables are turned on an strict empiricist (which most scientist are), ie, when they have a non-externally verifiable experience (ie, personal or subjective) then they are caught in a true dilemma.

Do I question my sanity, to be 'true' to my early values? Or do I revise my world-view and adapt to new, unanticipated evidence? What are the risks? Are the risks only on one side of the equation? Is Dawkins right when he disses Pascal's wager? Or is he refusing to consider all viewpoints fairly?

What effect do a priori personal decisions have on our ability to accept new, unexpected evidence?

I could discuss science and religion all day, other people tend to get easily offended when I give my uncensored viewpoints though :)

Yeah, I know what you mean.

[HiJolly]

Quite simply, no. It's debatable whether even objective evidence can "PROVE" anything. Things can be demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence available, but new evidence always has the possibility of negating that conclusion. I don't see the usefulness to clinging to ideas beyond the point where evidence supports them. It is that kind of dogmatic thinking that holds society back as a whole.

Well there you go. You'd rather know nothing than question your sanity. A view of sanity that is defined and bounded by ever-changing empirical evidence, not subjective evidence, regardless of how profound or permanent.

IE, you cannot have faith. A priori.

Bummer. Perhaps you could change your view. But how? Or did I miss something?

HiJolly

[DigitalShadow]

Well there you go. You'd rather know nothing than question your sanity. A view of sanity that is defined and bounded by ever-changing empirical evidence, not subjective evidence, regardless of how profound or permanent.

IE, you cannot have faith. A priori.

Bummer. Perhaps you could change your view. But how? Or did I miss something?

HiJolly

See my new thread: Exploring religious theory

Yes, you summed up my current viewpoint fairly accurately and yes I'm open to changing my viewpoint if I am presented with good reasons as to why. I would very much like it if you contributed to the thread I just started on this very subject :)

[HiJolly]

See my new thread: Exploring religious theory

Yes, you summed up my current viewpoint fairly accurately and yes I'm open to changing my viewpoint if I am presented with good reasons as to why. I would very much like it if you contributed to the thread I just started on this very subject :)

Your "good reasons" had better include personal, subjective experience, or you're sunk! IMO. LoL.

HiJolly

[sgallan]

Yeah, I've heard many people debate back and forth about Einstein's beliefs but I really didn't want to get into it and it was not part of the point I was trying to make so I overlooked that

Yeah I understand. I guess I have seen pretty much every significant historical figure that is considered "good", like Einstein, turned into some sort of true believer, that I am not as good as letting it go. I do find this trend an interesting phenomina. I mean what difference does it make to a persons faith if Einstein wasn't a believer in a specific Higher Power? Or that Jefferson was more agnostic than anything else. Or that Adams was a diest. And so on?

[japacific]

I've just been studying LDS teachings about the universe around us. They're clearly wrong.

[Guest tomk]

I've just been studying LDS teachings about the universe around us. They're clearly wrong.

Wrong, or just different?

Maybe you can elaborate a bit more?

[skalenfehl]

I've just been studying LDS teachings about the universe around us. They're clearly wrong.

Yes, please enlighten us!

[japacific]

Where to begin? How about the creation of our earth being a procreation?

Orsan Pratt says, "There is also a similarity in the process of creation between the earth and its inhabitants. The earth when created, according to the accounts we have, was covered with a flood of waters... by and by emerging from the waters. This was the birth of creation, the same as we are born here into this world, from one element into another. After having been brought forth from the element of water, the process of creation, or the further development of the earth continued." (November 22, 1873, JD 16:314)

Heber C. Kimball asked, "Where did the earth come from? From its parent earths." (November 8, 1857, JD 6:36)

Comments?

[Guest tomk]

Where to begin? How about the creation of our earth being a procreation?

Orsan Pratt says, "There is also a similarity in the process of creation between the earth and its inhabitants. The earth when created, according to the accounts we have, was covered with a flood of waters... by and by emerging from the waters. This was the birth of creation, the same as we are born here into this world, from one element into another. After having been brought forth from the element of water, the process of creation, or the further development of the earth continued." (November 22, 1873, JD 16:314)

Heber C. Kimball asked, "Where did the earth come from? From its parent earths." (November 8, 1857, JD 6:36)

Comments?

Sounds "reasonable" to me!!!

Do you have a problem with this concept?