Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_ErikJohnson
_Emeritus
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _ErikJohnson »

bcspace wrote:That's fine. I think everyone can now see that you're not able to support your argument and unwilling to provide an actual reference or even a quote to illustrate your point even though you state such exists.
...

That's pretty rich, coming from you bcspace. You've got some unfinished business: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18567&start=42

--Erik
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _moksha »

Buffalo wrote:New light and wisdom, of course, meaning, backing off on our faith claims until they become unfalsifiable. Of course, that may not represent historical Christianity or historical Judaism, but it's one way to maintain faith in light of contradictory evidence.


This is more a case of expanding the knowledge base of religion when Bronze Age speculations are tempered with the Age of Science. Seeking the truth is an age old religious goal that sometimes gets mired down, but the search is still there.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _DrW »

Roger wrote:Let me ask you, Dr W.... are you a free moral agent? Do your thoughts come from an independent thinker? Are you free to make moral choices? Free to love who you choose? Free to sacrifice for those you love? Or is all that merely an illusion brought about by the simple cause and effect of the functioning of trillions of selfish-genes?

I was with you until you got to the "trillions of selfish genes" part. On the face of it, this sounds like "woo woo" to me, so I will not bother to comment on the "trillions of genes" question. Instead of providing a discussion of basic biology, perhaps I can re-phrase the question so that it can be answered.

From the point of view of a neuroendocrinologist, your question (I think) would go more towards asking what I believe about how consciousness arises. More specifically, you might ask whether I believe that human consciousness arises as a result of complex electrical and chemical signals in the neural networks of the brain as it responds to external and internal stimuli. My answer is that, in fact, the data suggest that it is all chemistry (including electrochemistry) - nothing more and nothing less.

I believe (based on the evidence), that brain function and its associated consciousness arises completely and totally as a consequence of the brain's processing and interaction with the stimuli it receives. And I do not believe that humans are unique as self-conscious, thinking and reasoning organisms. In fact, evidence shows that several mammalian species are self aware, and can reason in that they can plan and execute complex, goal oriented activities much as as humans do. Do these animals have souls? Is there a celestial kingdom for bottle-nose dolphins?

Furthermore I would say that there is no credible evidence whatsoever for the existence of a spirit or soul as separate from the brain.

Specifically to your false choice question, I do believe that I am an independent thinker and that I have moral agency. This belief is not incompatible with a mechanistic view of brain function and consciousness.

When one thinks about how behavior (and even personality) can be altered by administration of drugs, brain injury, aging, psychological manipulations such as operant conditioning and the like, and when one realizes how closely these effects can be mapped on to changes in chemistry and electrical function in various regions of the brain, it is hard to imagine otherwise.

Some folks believe that there could be unrecognized quantum effects that are contributing to brain function. And some of the more imaginative see this a a way in which the "supernatural" could interact with humans by affecting brain function. Given recent demonstrations of (relatively) long range quantum entanglement effects in large ensembles of molecules in crystals, I would not rule out quantum effects over relatively short distances. The temperature at which the brain functions presents some problems here, but hey, I am willing to consider possible quantum effects until they are shown to not be possible. I know of no data that would absolutely rule this out.

Is such a thing as Joseph Smith's "refined spirit matter" found in the brain, or indeed in the body as a whole? No. Based on very careful and even pro-effect biased measurements and observations, there is no evidence for spirit matter or a "soul" whatsoever.

As a religionist, you are welcome to believe in all of the woo woo you wish. As a scientist, I will stick with the evidence. And the evidence does not support your idea of a supernatural component to consciousness, or to self-awareness, or to moral agency.

If this is not a satisfactory response, then you will need to re-phrase your question as other than a false choice, and I will try again.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Themis »

bcspace wrote:That's fine. I think everyone can now see that you're not able to support your argument and unwilling to provide an actual reference or even a quote to illustrate your point even though you state such exists.


You asked for a sources. I provided a link. You asked for a specific statement and I provided one. It was short so it shouldn't have been to hard for you, but you then ask where in the statement, and i provided two sentences. I doubt I can get it any smaller then that. :)

Well now that you're finally quoting something


And yet you missed my quotes how? LOL Deny all you want, it's what I expect from some who loudly procliams one cannot be a good Mormon and a democrat.
42
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _DrW »

Themis wrote:Deny all you want, it's what I expect from some who loudly procliams one cannot be a good Mormon and a democrat.

I was under the impression that it would be impossible to be any kind of a Mormon while being any kind of a Democrat.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Themis »

DrW wrote:
Themis wrote:Deny all you want, it's what I expect from some who loudly procliams one cannot be a good Mormon and a democrat.

I was under the impression that it would be impossible to be any kind of a Mormon while being any kind of a Democrat.


Mormons tend to be conservative in politics, but many are not including some of their leaders.
42
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

That's fine. I think everyone can now see that you're not able to support your argument and unwilling to provide an actual reference or even a quote to illustrate your point even though you state such exists.
...

That's pretty rich, coming from you bcspace. You've got some unfinished business: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18567&start=42


And what unfinished business would that be? The post you linked to gave no information as to what you wanted.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

That's fine. I think everyone can now see that you're not able to support your argument and unwilling to provide an actual reference or even a quote to illustrate your point even though you state such exists.

You asked for a sources. I provided a link.


Yet you did not say which one supported your case. I've seen those before. None of them do.

You asked for a specific statement and I provided one.


Where? Your buddy Buffalo had to provide one for you and it didn't help your case.

It was short so it shouldn't have been to hard for you, but you then ask where in the statement, and i provided two sentences. I doubt I can get it any smaller then that. :)


Must be too small for you to see since you seem to be unable to point it out. I answered Buffalo's immediately. You simply don't have anything for me to address.

Well now that you're finally quoting something

And yet you missed my quotes how?


Must be really tough to quote again...that is, if you ever did. Not even your buddies have been able to point to the post where you supposedly did.

LOL Deny all you want, it's what I expect from some who loudly procliams one cannot be a good Mormon and a democrat.


I simply repeat the truism.

I was under the impression that it would be impossible to be any kind of a Mormon while being any kind of a Democrat.


Not a good one. Not at all if you define being Mormon or Democrat as adhering to the teachings, philosophies and platforms.

Mormons tend to be conservative in politics, but many are not including some of their leaders.


And those are in denial of certain doctrines, or they're not very good Democrats/liberals.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Themis »

bcspace wrote:Yet you did not say which one supported your case. I've seen those before. None of them do.



Of course a number did, but I do not expect one so baised to admit it.

Where? Your buddy Buffalo had to provide one for you and it didn't help your case.



I said the 1909 first pres statment. It's right there on the link provided. You would think someone who can type would not have a hard time here.

Must be too small for you to see since you seem to be unable to point it out. I answered Buffalo's immediately. You simply don't have anything for me to address.


Most people who can read would just look at my post to see that indeed I did provide it.

...It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from the lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34),


I really wish you would stop your usual playing dumb and actually discuss things.

Must be really tough to quote again...that is, if you ever did. Not even your buddies have been able to point to the post where you supposedly did.


What buddies, and why would anyone have to show something you should be looking up yourself.

I simply repeat the truism.


Not in the LDS church, but then your view of that is definetly not the same as most members including the leaders.

And those are in denial of certain doctrines, or they're not very good Democrats/liberals.


I suspect you define these words intirely differently then those who may apply them to themselves.
42
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Buffalo »

bcspace wrote:
Well now that you're finally quoting something, how does this preclude evolution? The direct offspring is the spirit, not the body, and by this logic of yours, God scooping up handfuls of mud and clay to make a body also contradicts the 1909 statement.

Rather, the fact of the matter is that the physical body going through the process of evolution to be created meets the standard set forth by the 1909 statement since the physical body is not the direct and lineal off spring of Deity. Jesus Christ is the only Begotten of the Father and therefore it is only the spirit that is being referred to here.

So, process of evolution to create the body, and then it is combined with a literal spirit child of God. No contradiction.


But man can't be formed in the divine image. Our features are a legacy of our simian ancestry, and they came about through random mutation and natural selection.

Like I said, you're contradicting both your religion and science. Your attempt to harmonize them isn't working.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply