Exploring religious theory

[Guest tomk]

It doesn't matter and that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Of course the truth can reside in "just" one person, but without any evidence to back up their claim, it is just another unsubstantiated claim. Sure, we may have missed out on some things by not believing some unsupported claims, but the only other alternative is to believe everything, and the time that would be wasted chasing dead ends outweighs any possible gain from following all of them. That is why science is the way it is and that is also why it WORKS.

Unsubstantiated does not mean untrue. It just means "not yet measured by someone else."

Well, some knowledge is not communal. Some knowledge is only given individually. You can encounter people who have had the same knowledge given to them that you have, but the knowledge is still Person to person, God to man. There is still a sense of community because of the common experiences. Perhaps the witnesses come in different ways (tailored to the individual that God knows so well!) but ONE witness as to the truth of a thing.

[DigitalShadow]

From my experience, it is possible to marry subjective and objective information gathering in one seemless whole. The most effective scientist, in my view, would take advantage of many sources of data, not just one source or even one way of thinking.

I am a member of the LDS Faith. But that does not mean I cannot grasp the value of science or the scientific method. Quite to the contrary. I embrace science. I love the technology it brings to light!! My day job would be impossible without it. My faith does not limit my ability to embrace science.

Can science say the same?

How come science can't try doing both?

Like the LIFE cereal commercial or "Green Eggs and Ham." Try it! You might like it!

What has the scientific community got to lose?

And science chases dead ends ALL THE TIME, so don't give me that.

EDIT: I forgot to smile when I said "so don't give me that." So here: :)

In short:

Science is the study of the objective.

Religion is the study of the subjective.

Some people see no conflict, some people find more answers with objective data, and some people find more answers with subjective data. Some people refuse to accept religion because scientific theories conflict with it. Some people refuse to accept science because their religious beliefs conflict with it (not talking about you, but I have met many of them). To suggest that science would be "improved" by taking into account feelings into findings is as rediculous as suggesting that religion would be "improved" by changing scripture to match objectively observed data.

Science and religion cover two completely different topics. To mix them doesn't really benifet either. I've heard it said before that science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why".

[Guest tomk]

In short:

Science is the study of the objective.

Religion is the study of the subjective.

Some people see no conflict, some people find more answers with objective data, and some people find more answers with subjective data. Some people refuse to accept religion because scientific theories conflict with it. Some people refuse to accept science because their religious beliefs conflict with it (not talking about you, but I have met many of them). To suggest that science would be "improved" by taking into account feelings into findings is as rediculous as suggesting that religion would be "improved" by changing scripture to match objectively observed data.

Science and religion cover two completely different topics. To mix them doesn't really benifet either. I've heard it said before that science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why".

I am not suggesting use one to overwrite the other. I am suggesting use one to enhance the other.

I don't hold with your views on separating the two. I think much is lost by such a viewpoint.

[Guest tomk]

In short:

Science is the study of the objective.

Religion is the study of the subjective.

Some people see no conflict, some people find more answers with objective data, and some people find more answers with subjective data. Some people refuse to accept religion because scientific theories conflict with it. Some people refuse to accept science because their religious beliefs conflict with it (not talking about you, but I have met many of them). To suggest that science would be "improved" by taking into account feelings into findings is as rediculous as suggesting that religion would be "improved" by changing scripture to match objectively observed data.

Science and religion cover two completely different topics. To mix them doesn't really benifet either. I've heard it said before that science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why".

How can anyone possibly know this to be true?

[DigitalShadow]

How can anyone possibly know this to be true?

Science has brought us all the wonderful technology we enjoy today and increased our body of knowledge many times over. I don't claim it is perfect, but in general it is self-correcting and has proven its worth time and time again. If you want to believe that bringing faith into science would improve the process, that is certainly your perogative, but I believe I (along with many scientists) would respectfully disagree :)

I've explained why I believe that way to the best of my ability, at this point we're just going around in circles.

I have no problem with people incorporating both science and religion into their thought processes, many people do that. But I think there is a concept of using the right tool for the right job that you are missing. They are two entirely different areas of study with different approaches used to gain ground in them.

[Traveler]

In the most general sense of the word, yes we all do things we are not 100% sure of. The amount of evidence required to cause the incidence of faith is an important distinction though.

My reference Digital – is not just about things we are not 100% sure. I am talking about things that we do not have a clue – we do not understand at all and there is no logic or reason.

I am sure you have faced this before in debugging software. You have no logical basis for understanding the failure – the only hope you have to find the problem is that it will continue to occur again and again. And if it involves the Oracle database you are toast. But you have faith and make assumptions.

Why would anyone buy a lottery ticket – Because they, or someone in their family or someone they know, won a couple of million dollars? I do not think so.

Often we express faith in things we really want. Or we do not express faith in things that we do not want – even when it makes perfect sense.

What I am implying is that having faith in some things is beneficial even when there is no proof. Very little in life results from knowledge. Almost everything comes about because of some degree of faith. For example: Do you think that 2 + 2 = 4 ? Is it always true? Can you prove it? If you answered yes then you have blind faith in something you really do not understand. That something is the binary operation of addition in the theory of mathematics. The problem is that you only understand a limited part of the theory that results in you having uneducated faith based on partial knowledge to which you have derived a wrong conclusion. But because you want to believe it you have incomplete faith. And because, like so many in various religions, you have made something work for special cases you think it is true – when in reality it is not – but it is not really false ether. But because you lack the whole picture you have faith in that what you think you understand of mathematics. And so life is much more faith than knowledge.

Even your faith in what you think is not faith is an exercise of faith. -- I think. :)

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

My reference Digital – is not just about things we are not 100% sure. I am talking about things that we do not have a clue – we do not understand at all and there is no logic or reason.

I am sure you have faced this before in debugging software. You have no logical basis for understanding the failure – the only hope you have to find the problem is that it will continue to occur again and again. And if it involves the Oracle database you are toast. But you have faith and make assumptions.

Why would anyone buy a lottery ticket – Because they, or someone in their family or someone they know, won a couple of million dollars? I do not think so.

Often we express faith in things we really want. Or we do not express faith in things that we do not want – even when it makes perfect sense.

What I am implying is that having faith in some things is beneficial even when there is no proof. Very little in life results from knowledge. Almost everything comes about because of some degree of faith. For example: Do you think that 2 + 2 = 4 ? Is it always true? Can you prove it? If you answered yes then you have blind faith in something you really do not understand. That something is the binary operation of addition in the theory of mathematics. The problem is that you only understand a limited part of the theory that results in you having uneducated faith based on partial knowledge to which you have derived a wrong conclusion. But because you want to believe it you have incomplete faith. And because, like so many in various religions, you have made something work for special cases you think it is true – when in reality it is not – but it is not really false ether. But because you lack the whole picture you have faith in that what you think you understand of mathematics. And so life is much more faith than knowledge.

Even your faith in what you think is not faith is an exercise of faith. -- I think. :)

The Traveler

I like your posts, they usually make me think :)

I would like to discuss this further though because I'm not sure I entirely agree with your logic. When debugging software, yes I am sometimes left with no clue what is going wrong and have to make guesses as to what to do next. But once I make a guess, I devise tests to determine if it is correct or not and if that is not the problem, I quickly move on to the next guess. You can call that a measure of faith if you like, but I think that to relate the experience to religious faith is incorrect.

You say that having faith in things with no proof is sometimes benificial and I will grant you that, but what I'm saying is that having faith in things with no evidence is not benificial a significant amount of the time to be worthwhile.

I do not have faith in knowledge, in fact I believe that absolute truth is in fact unknowable by humans. I consider knowledge a close enough working approximation of the truth that proves to be useful more times than not and I treat it as such.

Many people here try to cast me into the false dichotomy of "either there is proof for something, or it is not true!" but in reality that couldn't be any father from my actual viewpoint. In my mind, everything is assigned a degree of truth based on the evidence I've seen for it. If I've seen enough evidence for something, it becomes a working truth and I will work under the assumption that it is true until I've seen enough evidence to the contrary. People ask me "why can't you you just have faith?" but to me, that is asking me to artificially and permanently assign something a higher degree of truth than I have seen evidence for and I simply don't see the point other than people telling me I will go to Hell or a lesser kingdom if I don't. I have no problem with provisionally assuming something is true and then do tests based on that assumption (essentially the scientific method), but that is not what is asked of me when it comes to religious faith.

[Guest tomk]

I like your posts, they usually make me think :)

I would like to discuss this further though because I'm not sure I entirely agree with your logic. When debugging software, yes I am sometimes left with no clue what is going wrong and have to make guesses as to what to do next. But once I make a guess, I devise tests to determine if it is correct or not and if that is not the problem, I quickly move on to the next guess. You can call that a measure of faith if you like, but I think that to relate the experience to religious faith is incorrect.

You say that having faith in things with no proof is sometimes benificial and I will grant you that, but what I'm saying is that having faith in things with no evidence is not benificial a significant amount of the time to be worthwhile.

I do not have faith in knowledge, in fact I believe that absolute truth is in fact unknowable by humans. I consider knowledge a close enough working approximation of the truth that proves to be useful more times than not and I treat it as such.

Many people here try to cast me into the false dichotomy of "either there is proof for something, or it is not true!" but in reality that couldn't be any father from my actual viewpoint. In my mind, everything is assigned a degree of truth based on the evidence I've seen for it. If I've seen enough evidence for something, it becomes a working truth and I will work under the assumption that it is true until I've seen enough evidence to the contrary. People ask me "why can't you you just have faith?" but to me, that is asking me to artificially and permanently assign something a higher degree of truth than I have seen evidence for and I simply don't see the point other than people telling me I will go to Hell or a lesser kingdom if I don't. I have no problem with provisionally assuming something is true and then do tests based on that assumption (essentially the scientific method), but that is not what is asked of me when it comes to religious faith.

I have no problem with provisionally assuming something is true and then do tests based on that assumption

THIS IS FAITH!

but that is not what is asked of me when it comes to religious faith.

AU CONTRARE!!!

May I ask you, have you really picked-apart Alma 32 and have you tried to draw parallels between Alma 32 and the scientific method???

Alma 32 is about as close as one can get (I think) to the "scientific method" !!!!!!!

Let me try and reparse part of this passage, replacing "FAITH" with "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"

I'll replace "WORDS" with "HYPOTHESIS"

"FRUIT" can be replaced with "VALID RESULTS"

26 Now, as I said concerning the scientific method—that it is not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my hypothesis. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than the scientific method is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my hypothesis, and exercise a particle of the scientific method, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my hypothesis.

28 Now, we will compare the hypothesis unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, 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, or that the hypothesis is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul [DATA]; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding [DATA], yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.[DATA]

29 Now behold, would not this increase your [bEFLIEF IN] the scientific method? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth,[DATA] and sprouteth, [DATA] and beginneth to grow, [DATA] then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your [bEFLIEF IN] the scientific method? Yea, it will strengthen your [bEFLIEF IN] the scientific method: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth [DATA] and beginneth to grow. [DATA]

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness

is another way of saying

Solid data is reproducable. The same steps followed time after time after time under the correct conditions will yield the same results.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, [DATA] but if it groweth not, [DATA] behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. [EXPERIMENT IS DISCARDED AS BOGUS]

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth [DATA] and sprouteth, [DATA] and beginneth to grow, [DATA] ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your scientific method is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, [DATA] and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, [DATA] that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, [DATA] and your mind doth begin to expand. [DATA]

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light [DATA]; and whatsoever is light, [DATA] is good, because it is discernible, [DATA] therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your scientific method, for ye have only exercised your scientific method to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. [A "SOLID" THEORY, LIKE THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY]

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof. [DON'T GIVE UP ON THE EXPERIMENT]

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of [TRUST IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD] to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. [NO SCIENTIST CAN GET RESULTS WITHOUT SEEING THE EXPERIMENT THROUGH TO COMPLETION]

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your [ADHERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD] with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the [RESULTS] thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your [ADHERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD] and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your [ADHERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD], and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

[HiJolly]

You say that having faith in things with no proof is sometimes benificial and I will grant you that, but what I'm saying is that having faith in things with no evidence is not benificial a significant amount of the time to be worthwhile.

Your subjective choice of what to accept, and what NOT to accept, as evidence, makes all the difference. Prove, if you will, that your criterion is not subjective.

HiJolly

[DigitalShadow]

I have no problem with provisionally assuming something is true and then do tests based on that assumption

THIS IS FAITH!

but that is not what is asked of me when it comes to religious faith.

AU CONTRARE!!!

I already have provisionally assumed this true and done experiments based on that assumption. Going by the data of the experiments, there is no reason for me to accept the church so far, but people still maintain that I should have faith. Obviously faith in a religious context is something more.

Hey, if that is all I need to have religious faith, I just got an idea for what to say when I'm asked to bear my testimony. "I have provisionally assumed that this church is true and while the initial experiments yielded no results, I will continue working under that assumption. I say these things in the name of the Scientific Method. Amen."

I somehow doubt that would go over too well though

Edit: Pardon my sense of humor, no offense was intended. I did like your post and I see where you are going with it drawing parallels between planting the seed of faith then judging its truth by the fruits and forming a hypothesis then devising tests based on it and using the results to determine its truth. My problem is that I still haven't seen the fruits of any religion personally.

[Guest tomk]

I already have provisionally assumed this true and done experiments based on that assumption. Going by the data of the experiments, there is no reason for me to accept the church so far, but people still maintain that I should have faith. Obviously faith in a religious context is something more.

Hey, if that is all I need to have religious faith, I just got an idea for what to say when I'm asked to bear my testimony. "I have provisionally assumed that this church is true and while the initial experiments yielded no results, I will continue working under that assumption. I say these things in the name of the Scientific Method. Amen."

I somehow doubt that would go over too well though

This actually made me laugh out loud. You are a stinker.

But, I get your point.

I wish I could explain your "lack of data."

I know your explanation is "my data points to there being no God."

Hopefully the "DATA" will start flowing for you at some point. :)

[DigitalShadow]

This actually made me laugh out loud. You are a stinker.

But, I get your point.

I wish I could explain your "lack of data."

I know your explanation is "my data points to there being no God."

Hopefully the "DATA" will start flowing for you at some point. :)

Glad you liked it, I was worried it might offend :)

[lostnfound]

This actually made me laugh out loud. You are a stinker.

But, I get your point.

I wish I could explain your "lack of data."

I know your explanation is "my data points to there being no God."

Hopefully the "DATA" will start flowing for you at some point. :)

That is funny!..You are a stinker! lol

[lostnfound]

curious though what experiements did you do?

[godtakethaway]

Sorry if I'm digging up something that's been discussed, but I want to comment on the following.

Because God invented Thomas Edison.

God is great because God created everything, but I can't help but feel that Thomas Edison and Tesla earns more of my respect. If God is perfect then it would be trivial for him to create anything imaginable. Whereas people like Tesla, Edison, etc were mere humans who have limited tools and intelligence and they are able to come up with something incredible.

As an analogy, an 80 year old woman running a mile is much more impressive and worthy of praise than if it were 30 year old healthy man, because for the young man it is expected given his abilities.

On the other hand, God placed Edison in the situation he was raised in, and created all things - including the stars that exploded and assembled the earth and the clay from whence we sprung.

In the same vein, God created and placed disbelievers here and then tell them to believe. Yet for a lot of non-believers, God never created a situation to undeniably show them his presence, unlike many in church who have seen it.

[rameumptom]

There are many people who claim to witness supernatural events with witnesses and then inspire others receive feelings that they are in fact true. That's basically what a religion is and there are a multitude of them. The burden of proof is on the one making extrodinary claims, it is not for everyone else to either explain how it didn't happen or believe it. That is all I was referring to. I was pointing out the irony of you casually rejecting other supernatural claims, but then asking for an explaination of the ones you hold to be true.

Where is this "multitude" of religions that have multiple key witnesses to their inspired beginnings? Muhammad was a sole prophet of Islam, with no one else seeing Gabriel or the visions he had.

Buddha did not have his visions of Nirvana with anyone else. Mary Baker Eddy and Mary White did not see angels in conjunction with dozens or hundreds of other people, as far as I have been able to determine. Please straighten me out, if I'm wrong.

Many Christians do not believe in a spiritual witness that involves feelings. In fact, some sects, such as the Church of Christ, do not believe in modern spiritual gifts. They must rely on the writings of dead prophets from 2 millennia ago.

But Mormonism is extremely different on this wise. First, we have a claim of modern revelation that not only the prophet can receive, but also all of the followers. Second, we believe in continuing revelation and an open canon, which no other major Christian sect believes. Third, we have a physical volume as potential evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling: how did a man with a 3rd grade education write a 540 page book in 2 months? How did he know all of the valid ancient names he used, many of which were not known in his day (Sariah, Alma, Paanchi, etc.)? I could go on with the intricacies of the BoM's internal evidences, but will refer you to the many books and articles already written on the subject at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage and elsewhere.

Fourth, there were many people involved in Joseph's visions. Yes, the First Vision was just for Joseph Smith's eyes. But many of the later visions were not. 11 witnesses saw the gold plates, three of them saw Moroni. Other witnesses saw visions with Joseph Smith. Since Joseph's day, we have had many revelations occur that involved more than one person. For example, Elder David B. Haight told me that the 1978 revelation on the priesthood involved the First Presidency and 11 of the 12 apostles.

It isn't an issue of one individual receiving all the spiritual witness, and then others having to rely on that person's experience. All of these are extremely different than any other Christian or non-Christian religious experience of our day. And it is not correct, IMO, to lump it in with all the other spiritual witness claims of other churches, wherein there is only one witness of a specific key event.

[Guest tomk]

DS:

I want to touch upon a few possible explanations about why prayer may not always "seem" to be effective when the scientific method is applied.

In a laboratory, when you do certain things, certain results are expected. For example, when you combine (I had to go look this up)

sodium + chlorine sodium chloride

2 Na(s) + Cl2(g) 2 NaCl(s)

You get sodium chloride (table salt).

Prayer is not like this.

Among other things, prayer is used to align our will with the will of God.

Each person being unique in how they learn, how they process information, and what they will or will not "respond to" -- God deals with each person individually, especially in how He chooses to answer our prayers.

Some prayers may be met with silence, so we can learn patience, or so we can learn gratitude for answers already given or realize we have not followed counsel already given. Sometimes the answer is more meaningful when we are asked to "hunger and thirst" for a while before being given the answer.

Please don't answer this publicly, but on a scale from 1 to 10 -- how badly do you want to know that God exists?

Also remember that "No" is a valid answer to prayer. One form of Him saying "No" is in His silence.

Answers are usually not given instantaneously, right during or right after we pray about something. Instead, the answers come over a period of time. Part of receiving answers is taking the time and having the interest to look for the answers in the world around us, and in what happens in our lives. Instead of being skeptical or critical we have a certain optimism about the events in our lives. We have a spirit of trying to "learn from" the events in our lives and derive meaning from them.

I commend this talk to your review, DS:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Using the Supernal Gift of Prayer

[WillowTheWhisp]

Sometimes when I pray in RS or Sacrament Meeting I pause. I do not plan to pause. I just feel the need to. I wonder if Heavenly Father uses those pauses to answer even if the answer isn't to me?

[lostnfound]

Where is this "multitude" of religions that have multiple key witnesses to their inspired beginnings? Muhammad was a sole prophet of Islam, with no one else seeing Gabriel or the visions he had.

Buddha did not have his visions of Nirvana with anyone else. Mary Baker Eddy and Mary White did not see angels in conjunction with dozens or hundreds of other people, as far as I have been able to determine. Please straighten me out, if I'm wrong.

Many Christians do not believe in a spiritual witness that involves feelings. In fact, some sects, such as the Church of Christ, do not believe in modern spiritual gifts. They must rely on the writings of dead prophets from 2 millennia ago.

But Mormonism is extremely different on this wise. First, we have a claim of modern revelation that not only the prophet can receive, but also all of the followers. Second, we believe in continuing revelation and an open canon, which no other major Christian sect believes. Third, we have a physical volume as potential evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling: how did a man with a 3rd grade education write a 540 page book in 2 months? How did he know all of the valid ancient names he used, many of which were not known in his day (Sariah, Alma, Paanchi, etc.)? I could go on with the intricacies of the BoM's internal evidences, but will refer you to the many books and articles already written on the subject at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage and elsewhere.

Fourth, there were many people involved in Joseph's visions. Yes, the First Vision was just for Joseph Smith's eyes. But many of the later visions were not. 11 witnesses saw the gold plates, three of them saw Moroni. Other witnesses saw visions with Joseph Smith. Since Joseph's day, we have had many revelations occur that involved more than one person. For example, Elder David B. Haight told me that the 1978 revelation on the priesthood involved the First Presidency and 11 of the 12 apostles.

It isn't an issue of one individual receiving all the spiritual witness, and then others having to rely on that person's experience. All of these are extremely different than any other Christian or non-Christian religious experience of our day. And it is not correct, IMO, to lump it in with all the other spiritual witness claims of other churches, wherein there is only one witness of a specific key event.

you posted how could a uneducated boy write this thing..Well let me name a few other uneducated people for you..shakespear..White...(seven adventist claim her writings) and many more..Joseph smith was a student to learning.. and as far as those visions of witnesses..Who were these witnesses? Were they not family, close friends,? more on that in another thread I suppose. :) Criticism of Mormonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia here is a link discussing about those witnesses that is interesting.

[Guest tomk]

Sometimes when I pray in RS or Sacrament Meeting I pause. I do not plan to pause. I just feel the need to. I wonder if Heavenly Father uses those pauses to answer even if the answer isn't to me?

He does, and He would. :)

[rameumptom]

The problem with attempting to apply the scientific method to prayer or spiritual things is that for the average scientific experiment, the environment is more easily controlled. Extraneous events and contaminants are carefully filtered out of an experiment, ensuring success each time it is performed.

With spiritual events, it is very hard to delimit the experience so as to ensure a repeatable experience each time. It is not conducted in a sterile white room, but more often in our harried workday, with children arguing, bills plaguing us, and time schedules pressing in. Are we studying and meditating in a quiet place every day? Are we refraining from sinning consistently? Do annoyances and troubles of the day plague our minds, distracting us from the optimal spiritual experience?

Once, Joseph Smith argued with Emma, and then went upstairs to translate. He sat before the Urim and Thummim for 1/2 an hour, not saying a word. He left the room, went outside to pray for an hour. He then returned, apologized to Emma, and immediately was able to translate.

D&C 8 and 9 tell us about Oliver Cowdery's attempt to translate and why it failed: because he did not prepare the conditions sufficiently. He thought all he had to do was ask, and that God would give him the translation. Instead, he was shown that it was a process of thinking and concentrating. Distractions or laziness would not produce the results, as they are contaminants to this experiment.

Many people do not get a spiritual answer, because they simply do not do all of the required prior preparation to ensure the spiritual/scientific experiment goes without any hitch or flaws.

[rameumptom]

you posted how could a uneducated boy write this thing..Well let me name a few other uneducated people for you..shakespear..White...(seven adventist claim her writings) and many more..Joseph smith was a student to learning.. and as far as those visions of witnesses..Who were these witnesses? Were they not family, close friends,? more on that in another thread I suppose. :) Criticism of Mormonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia here is a link discussing about those witnesses that is interesting.

Yes, some were family members, some became friends. But there is a big difference. I was in a Mormonism and American Life seminar in Indianapolis a few weeks ago, and Jan Shipps discussed the witnesses. She briefly discussed how of those 11 witnesses, 5 fell away but still didn't deny their witness of the Book of Mormon. They did not see Joseph as a false prophet, but a fallen prophet.

There is a major difference between White's writings and Joseph Smith's. She didn't attempt to write ancient books of scripture. Her writings detailed the expectations of God for the modern day. She didn't have to deal with ancient names, behaviors, cultures, etc. And she spent far longer than 60 days writing her book. So did Shakespeare, who was actually decently educated for his day. Joseph became a student to learning only AFTER receiving the gold plates. Prior to that, his reading was mostly confined to the Bible, as it was with most people living on the edge of the frontier.

[Traveler]

I like your posts, they usually make me think :)

I would like to discuss this further though because I'm not sure I entirely agree with your logic. When debugging software, yes I am sometimes left with no clue what is going wrong and have to make guesses as to what to do next. But once I make a guess, I devise tests to determine if it is correct or not and if that is not the problem, I quickly move on to the next guess. You can call that a measure of faith if you like, but I think that to relate the experience to religious faith is incorrect.

You say that having faith in things with no proof is sometimes benificial and I will grant you that, but what I'm saying is that having faith in things with no evidence is not benificial a significant amount of the time to be worthwhile.

I do not have faith in knowledge, in fact I believe that absolute truth is in fact unknowable by humans. I consider knowledge a close enough working approximation of the truth that proves to be useful more times than not and I treat it as such.

Many people here try to cast me into the false dichotomy of "either there is proof for something, or it is not true!" but in reality that couldn't be any father from my actual viewpoint. In my mind, everything is assigned a degree of truth based on the evidence I've seen for it. If I've seen enough evidence for something, it becomes a working truth and I will work under the assumption that it is true until I've seen enough evidence to the contrary. People ask me "why can't you you just have faith?" but to me, that is asking me to artificially and permanently assign something a higher degree of truth than I have seen evidence for and I simply don't see the point other than people telling me I will go to Hell or a lesser kingdom if I don't. I have no problem with provisionally assuming something is true and then do tests based on that assumption (essentially the scientific method), but that is not what is asked of me when it comes to religious faith.

Digital S: I also enjoy your post – I believe we have a lot of similarities. I especially like the way you think. I have long argued that the method or journey is more important than the destination or results; thus my handle “The Traveler”. I believe that method is just as important in religion as it is in science and vice versa. However, before we continue on this discussion I would like to chat with you concerning proof verses evidence.

It is easy to say that we become beholden to a notion out of the proof that the notion is true. No one disputes a proof but there are few things in life that come gift warped in proof. We must deal with evidence and is often the case some evidence may appear to be conflicting. We all know that in truth evidence cannot conflict but because of assumptions we make our view often skew what we think is the meaning of evidence. This is a very common error in both science and religion.

Sometimes there is such a preponderance of evidence that we skip the proof. This is the case with the concept that all the species of plants and creatures alive today evolved from something that lived and existed at some previous time. Sometimes one idea has little more evidence than another. In such cases we often think someone stuck on one notion and not accepting another has jumped to conclusions. In any case it is seldom the case that anyone holds to any notion except that they “have faith” in certain evidences that they hold to some account above other evidence that may contradict what they are deducing. The main point that I have tried to make is that everyone with opinions must hold with some faith to certain evidences as they interpret things. Even claiming to not have an opinion about something can be an interpretation of evidence and an exercise of faith.

And now I come to the point that I believe you and I are in much agreement. It is not so much the conclusion as it is the method to the conclusion that draws my attention. I do admit that some conclusions are so obviously flawed that it is not difficult to deduce that the one holding to such fiddle faddle was “spoon fed” the conclusion to which they did no checking or testing for any degree of validity. (And you and I know the results of software that was brilliantly produced and never check out).

I am always suspicious of the mathematical proof where one goes from one step to another with the statement – it is obvious that ….. Wait – please include what it is that you think is so obvious. An so I am with religious statements when someone says that something is true because the scriptures say so. I am much more impressed with the person that says – I have lived according to this idea and this is what I did and what I observed. Not just once but many times. That has my attention.

Another thing about religion that bothers me is the focus many have on a destination (heaven) that they do not understand nor or they willing to accept any responsibility in any method to get them there. This is a big red flag to me in science or religion. In fact, I believe this is the point of most importance in religion and becoming enlightened. It is all about the path taken. Again, the road for me is more important that the destination. If someone does not have the faith to take responsibility for the steps taken – I do not believe they in reality know or can claim they are going anywhere. Once one travels by such faith in what they are doing or in other words faith in the journey – then it is the journey and not the destination that becomes important regardless if one considers science or religion. In both cases G-d reveals wondrous and great things to the traveler.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The problem with attempting to apply the scientific method to prayer or spiritual things is that for the average scientific experiment, the environment is more easily controlled. Extraneous events and contaminants are carefully filtered out of an experiment, ensuring success each time it is performed.

With spiritual events, it is very hard to delimit the experience so as to ensure a repeatable experience each time. It is not conducted in a sterile white room, but more often in our harried workday, with children arguing, bills plaguing us, and time schedules pressing in. Are we studying and meditating in a quiet place every day? Are we refraining from sinning consistently? Do annoyances and troubles of the day plague our minds, distracting us from the optimal spiritual experience?

Once, Joseph Smith argued with Emma, and then went upstairs to translate. He sat before the Urim and Thummim for 1/2 an hour, not saying a word. He left the room, went outside to pray for an hour. He then returned, apologized to Emma, and immediately was able to translate.

D&C 8 and 9 tell us about Oliver Cowdery's attempt to translate and why it failed: because he did not prepare the conditions sufficiently. He thought all he had to do was ask, and that God would give him the translation. Instead, he was shown that it was a process of thinking and concentrating. Distractions or laziness would not produce the results, as they are contaminants to this experiment.

Many people do not get a spiritual answer, because they simply do not do all of the required prior preparation to ensure the spiritual/scientific experiment goes without any hitch or flaws.

I hope you do not think I am criticizing your ideas rameumptom but I think your example of scientific approach to prayer is flawed. I think you are focused on what you think is an answer rather than what is the answer to prayer. I do believe that the most intelligent mind in the universe is not so impressed in the lesser mind that attempts to dictate what ought to be done to answer their prayer. Rather the greater intelligence is more likely to “prepare” the lesser mind to be able to comprehend what is needed to understand how to experience the answer and learn it through various steps on their own.

It has been my experience that those that expect a gift without effort will not even recognize an intelligent and worthwhile gift. Thus the experiment will always fail and it does not matter if one seeks scientific or religious truth from G-d.

The Traveler