Science is not a belief system...

[_moksha]

What comfort does atheism give you when you are old, frail and about to die? Does it help mourn for you when you have lost a spouse or a child? Does it celebrate with you the momentous events in your life? Does it help you survive adversity?

[Guest]

Continuing, but separate from what I wrote above, are the insights religion provides on the big fundamental questions. What makes "you" you, why you exist, and so on.

What are the big insights Mormonism provides on these two questions that science is hopeless to penetrate?

What makes "you" you?

According to Mormonism, you are either a) an eternally existing intelligence clothed in a spirit body clothed in a phyiscal body or b) a spirit body constructed of "intelligence" or "light of truth".

The problem with a) is that it's just a ham-fisted factual revelation that doesn't answer the reasons for the question. An "intelligence" is just a circular answer - we want to know what the intelligence is and get some insight as to how it explains anything. As it stands, it does something religion is famous for, it stacks turtles. The earth stays in place by riding the back of a turtle. But why doesn't the turtle fall? Because it's riding another turtle! For the problem of mind, you have the same unanswered problems, but riding on two turtles.

b) is only trivially more insightful. Bruce R. McConkie apparently believed this. We've eliminated one turtle from Mormon theology and now the problem of mind simply rides the back of one turtle, it's the spirit being. But no insight has been offered on the tough question, how does all that spirit matter come together to make "you"? This is the same problem non-theist philosophers struggle with, only you've added a turtle, so with religion, you've added more questions without actually answering anything.

Why do we exist?

It's a big assumption that we do exist for a reason. But what is the Mormon insight so impervious to the microscopes of science? We exist to have joy - the philosophical answer. But absolutely anyone could have just made up that answer. Do we really need religion to tell us that enjoying ourselves in the long run is an end to our existence, provided it makes sense to talk about such ends?

Then there is the ham-fisted causal narrative. We exist because God took a naked "intelligence", clothed it with a spirit body, and then forced it into a mass of flesh, God, his father and his father, all self-existing as fleshy mammals. We've raised about 100 difficult questions for every one trivially answered. And we're left, still, with little insight as to ultimate origins. Mormons sit around and let scientists figure out the difficult parts and then at opportune moments, when something like a metaverse is proposed, latch on and say, "Hey, that must of been what Joseph Smith taught, Mormons have believed in many universes all along!" A tip of that hat of course, to the belief that science ultimately answers everything...

[Guest]

What comfort does atheism give you when you are old, frail and about to die? Does it help mourn for you when you have lost a spouse or a child? Does it celebrate with you the momentous events in your life? Does it help you survive adversity?

Hi Moksha. Do you think people that are atheists can choose to believe in God?

I know I can't. I've had a few people (some that I consider incredibly intelligent) tell me I can choose to believe in God. That is ridiculous! So whether or not I am an atheist or a hopeful agnostic (although I'm starting to wonder what I am hoping for precisely) I can't just one day wake up and choose the alternative.

Do you think you could wake up tomorrow and say God doesn't exist and believe it? Give it a try. :) I bet you can't even get it off your tongue. When I try to say God does exist it comes out in an odd manner and feels false and forced. It's not there. So whether I find comfort in my life or not I can't waste it away looking for something that I don't believe in that is going to give it meaning.

I can also tell you that when I was a believer, for a brief time in my life, that I mourned that God forsake me. It was no comfort to believe in God and need comfort when no comfort came. :)

[_Gadianton]

What comfort does atheism give you when you are old, frail and about to die?

It may be true that theism helps people with those last few moments better than atheism, generally. But don't forget, religion has largely set the expectations. If you grow up having it drilled in your head that you're a prince and will one day inherit millions and live a fairy tale, when dad dies and his debt leaves you nothing, and then your supermodel girlfriend without a paycheck dumps you, it's surely a greater existential crisis than for the guy who grows up accustomed to hard work and not always getting what he wants. Were the israelites, who I believe are widely considered to not have a significant belief in an afterlife when they died?

Does it help mourn for you when you have lost a spouse or a child?

Again, possibly not, but consider the expectations and how they were created. And consider that the other guys religion won't answer these questions to your satisfaction. Only Mormons, remember, get to look forward to an actual husband-wife relationship after death. How is the rest of the religious world comforted?

Does it celebrate with you the momentous events in your life? Does it help you survive adversity?

Does religion celebrate with you the momentous events in your life? Do atheists not go to weddings? I don't see any reason why atheism can't help one survive adversity. It might even help one do so with a healthier view on finding happiness where you're at, rather than looking forward to the big chocolate bar God will give you in the next life.

[_Nephi]

They said they were doing it for Allah, not for their own glory.

They may have said this, but if they were not garanteed 40 virgins, and paradise for their martyrdoms they wouldn't have done it. They did it for their own glory. But, as I said, time goes on for eternity, and so, this isn't the end for them. They continue to grow, just as all of us do. I really think if many of you would read my universalist article, you would get a better idea of how two totally opposite viewpoints which seem to conflict, are (in fact) both true.

[_Nephi]

The sad part will be that in reality they were not at war....

What reality? Do you mean the physical one that can be touched and felt (and seen with microscopes and telescopes) -- which records that period of time as wartime...?

I am speaking of a physical war as in the sense of how history records it. Though we may not have been the best of friends, they did what they did because someone named Bin Laden guaranteed them countless virgins and paradise for their actions. Not quite sure they did it for God, moreso for their own glory here. But again, I cannot judge. I am only making assumptions.

[_KimberlyAnn]

They said they were doing it for Allah, not for their own glory.

They may have said this, but if they were not garanteed 40 virgins, and paradise for their martyrdoms they wouldn't have done it. They did it for their own glory. But, as I said, time goes on for eternity, and so, this isn't the end for them. They continue to grow, just as all of us do. I really think if many of you would read my universalist article, you would get a better idea of how two totally opposite viewpoints which seem to conflict, are (in fact) both true.

Then, Nephi, you must perform every pious or kind act you do for your own glory, too. Were not the bombers acting in a way they believed pious? Are you not promised paradise in exchange for works? Ironically, the paradise promised you looks remarkably like the one promised those Islamic suicide bombers.

Are you telling us those suicide bombers did their required works for themselves and not for God but that you are somehow better when you keep the laws and ordinances of the "gospel" so that you might inherit an eternal reward? Aren't all religionists really working their asses off for their own eventual glory? Maybe some aren't, but are you qualified to judge who is and who isn't? How do you know those suicide bombers were doing it for their own glory and not for the glory of Allah? Can I then safely assume you do what you do for your own glory and not the glory of Mormon God?

KA

[_Nephi]

Then, Nephi, you must perform every pious or kind act you do for your own glory, too. Were not the bombers acting in a way they believed pious? Are you not promised paradise in exchange for works? Ironically, the paradise promised you looks remarkably like the one promised those Islamic suicide bombers.

Are you telling us those suicide bombers did their required works for themselves and not for God but that you are somehow better when you keep the laws and ordinances of the "gospel" so that you might inherit an eternal reward? Aren't all religionists really working their asses off for their own eventual glory? Maybe some aren't, but are you qualified to judge who is and who isn't? How do you know those suicide bombers were doing it for their own glory and not for the glory of Allah? Can I then safely assume you do what you do for your own glory and not the glory of Mormon God?

KA

Heh, Mormon God. I like that. On a side note, KA, I finally got to hear Good ole Bowling Green (the link you gave me). My wife and I have been working on it ever since. Sounds wierd on violin and cello, though.

Yes, I would agree that the paradise of Islam and the paradise of Mormonism are almost identical, however, let's not confuse the reward with the purpose. I am promised some great paradise because of my works in the Mormon faith, but that is the reward. That is not the purpose we do what we do. If one goes through life doing things for the rewards only, ignoring the purpose, they miss the point. The purpose of life is to better yourself and those around you. Its purpose is NOT to get to heaven (as many religious people believe). So, no, I am not working my ass off for my own eventual glory. I am working my ass off to better myself and those around me. This is an ongoing process without a "goal line".... It is continuous. If you walk that path, eventually you walk through the city of paradise, but that is not the goal, here... Keep going....

[_marg]

I see this mistake made everyday in my life, and it can be upsetting as such. So many times I see people who do not have a belief in God, or anything of spirituality because they use science as their "belief system". This is such a disturbing mistake to see happen, and I would like to take some time to explain why this is a bad way to use science.

People do not activly use science to discredit the concept of God. Tell me what sort of scientific observations, testing, speculating on God, describing its characteristics, its functioning does science do? Absolutely nothing that I'm aware of. But people claim God and atheists are not moved to accept. Some say there is lack of evidence, some say the reasoning presented by theists is not adequate etc. Or an atheist may use no argument and have not given the God concept much thought at all.

God does not enter into the scientific arena and atheists do not use science methodology, the activities associated with science to hypothesize on the God notion.

Science vs. Religion. They are both tools. Tools are used by mankind for many things. Maybe the tool is used to alter something (like a knife), or used to fix something (like a screwdriver), or to help move something (a backhoe or a car), or is used to understand something around themselves (like an multimeter, or the Internet). So what are science and religion? They are tools used to understand stuff around themselves.

I don't consider science a tool to understand nature, unless one considers reasoning and evidence tools. The functioning of the brain is a tool to employ reasoning, the ability to use the various senses are tools. So if you want to stick with the tool analogy...science uses the brain's reasoning ability along with the tools of the senses which are enhanced with man created tools to develop explanations of how the physical universe operates and attempts to explain and describe what is out there in reality.

Religion disregards the tools of the senses used by science. But it uses the brain tool to imagine theories about how the universe was created, how life was created, who or what manipulates or controls the universe. Theories are only limited by imagination. There is no means to get any sort of consensus of which theory is best reflective of a reality out there. There is no limit to whatever one wishes to imagine.

As far as each of these means to discovering a reality out there, science yields best fit explanations of data, religion is not concerned with best fit and so whatever it proposes can not be evaluated against a reality.

Where we are is a cool place. There are two "realms" that cross here - reality and spirituality, and the more we learn of both realms, the more of the two are merged together as one. Reality is the matter, energy, and space-time around us. Spirituality is the non-tangible energy and matter that gives structure to reality (ie, why things are here, what is a "you" and why "you" exist). They are separate realms that co-exist here, but there are parts of each realm that is currently separate from the other.

Well actually religion does make claim to a reality. Various religions claim a real God exists, or a real heaven exists. They are not simply metaphorical concepts. Claiming they exist and mankind can not access them, is another claim which can not be evaluted by any means. This is what religion does it makes up claims and offers no means by which one can determine if what it claims has any truth involved.

I have spoken of the parable of the microscope vs the telescope here before, but allow me to restate it:

You cannot use a microscope to find galaxies; you cannot use a telescope to find bacteria. If you do, you could draw the wrong conclusion that galaxies or bacteria do not exist.

Well, actually you have to appreciate what the tools can be used for, what information they do provide and what their limitations are.

The activities of science generates knowledge of what the physical universe consists of and how it functions.

The activities of religion generate imaginations of a physical world and non physical. How close these imaginations are to a reality is anyone's guess.

By the same logic, one cannot use science to find God, and one cannot use religion to describe how "the sciences" work around the individual (like geology, or astrophysics, or psychology, et al). This is using the tools wrong, and doing as such causes one to draw the wrong conclusions (like the earth is the center of everything because God loves us, or that science hasn't found proof of God therefore, God does not exist).

One can not observe, test, that which is offered up by someone's imagination solely. One can not observe and test a tooth fairy, one can not observe and test any particular individual's claim to a God. And God claims do not offer any predictive value or explanations which can be evaluated against the natural world. One can not draw any conclusion about a God claim which can be relied upon. There is no means to evaluate one God claim against another. None offered are reliable as some sort of reality or truth, or even close to a reality or truth.

Religion is not a tool to a reliable truth claim.

And yet, we see this around us all the time. If you believe science to be a "religion" of both realms, you miss half the picture because your tool (science) cannot see one of the two realms. By the same nature, if you use religion describes both realms, you miss half the picture (for the same reason). Science and Religion co-exist when one realizes what each can do as a tool for one's self. As long as you separate the two realms and use the right tool for each realm, then they do not conflict with each other.

And here we have various claims. "Science is a religion." By what justification? Science observes tests and evaluates claims. Religion fabricates claims which can not be evaluated against a reality, hence one claim has no more merit of truth than another.
"2 realms exist" not 3, 4 or more. By what means can one evaluate whether another realm for religion exists as a reality rather than pure fantasy? None is offered. This is typical of religion. It piles one claim fabricated from imagination upon another.

Regardless, both are essential tools if one wishes to see a better picture of both realms around themselves. Neither is a complete picture (we do not have all the answers in science, nor spirituality), and if anyone claims to have all the answers, they are sadly mislead. However, it is my personal belief, that when we do have all the answers, religion and science shall be inseparable tools.

Science is concerned with a natural world for which there is consensus of experience. Religion is concerned with imaginings, for which there is no consensus, yet there is much contradiction in claims and truth is a matter of being of anyone's guess.

[_beastie]

They may have said this, but if they were not garanteed 40 virgins, and paradise for their martyrdoms they wouldn't have done it. They did it for their own glory. But, as I said, time goes on for eternity, and so, this isn't the end for them. They continue to grow, just as all of us do. I really think if many of you would read my universalist article, you would get a better idea of how two totally opposite viewpoints which seem to conflict, are (in fact) both true.

How in the world could you possibly know this? I could just as easily declare that you would never follow Mormonism if you weren't promised that you could become a god one day. What greater glory is there than THAT promise?

I'm not trying to rag on you, I think universalism is usually benign, but I'm trying to get you to see some of the inconsistencies in your statements.