LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
RandFan said:
Yes, but more importantly we have a robust scientific model for an evolved conscience.
Click to expand...

And that model is. . .?
Click to expand...
I've already stated it and provided links but that's fine. I don't mind going through it again. I'll outline the model and then provide supporting sources.


  1. Animals have encoded in their DNA behaviors which have been selected for through evolution to increase their fitness and more importantly their chance of reproduction and thus pass on their genes (see The Selfish Gene).
  2. Social animals, including humans, have heritable behavioral traits that help ensure reproductive fitness. Piranha, even when hungry, do not eat other healthy Piranha. If the Piranha were likely to eat each other they would either die out or be rare (and certainly not social).
  3. Humans are a social species.
  4. Social species owe much of their reproductive success to the fact that a given number of individuals of the species are willing to reduce their own individual fitness for increased fitness of the group (see reciprocal altruism, and game theory).
  5. The scientific model for the basis of human morality (a complex model of empathy, compassion and reciprocal altruism has both explanatory and predictive power).
  6. The model explains why morality exists (it increases reproductive fitness of the group).
  7. The model makes testable predictions (social species including species like vampire bats will mutually cooperate to ensure that most members receive sufficient blood to survive and reproduce). These predictions have been demonstrated true time and time again through field research on animals (see Vampire Bat field research) and in sociological studies of humans. We acurately predict the likelihood, on average, that an individual will care for another based on shared genes. An individual is most likely to sacrifice for offspring, then siblings, then cousins, then neighbors, in an ever widening circle based on shared genetic material. The more common the genetics the more likely an individual is to help out another individual. This has been demonstrated through statistics (see The Selfish Gene). This also has the explanatory power to account for tribalism and xenophobia (see Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle).
  8. The model predicts that species that are closer to humans will exhibit moral (ethical) traits closer to humans than species further away. And this is what we find (see Morality: It's not just for humans).
To some up, Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution via Natural Selection provides a foundational basis for human morality. It provides both explanatory and predictive power. Since Darwin first published On The Origin Of Species, we have discovered the genetic basis to pass on heritable traits. We have come up with supporting theories for behavior and morality. From these theories we have made reliable predictions and mathematical models that also provide explanatory and predictive power. All science thus far demonstrates and reinforces the model for evolutionary based morality.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Yes. He's still refusing to respond to the query as to the exact role that faith plays in the scientific method. It would be simple enough to admit error, and this would earn him more respect than he realizes.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtfulness in reviving my position re. the role that faith plays in the scientific method. Note the following:

1. "Faith and hope are indispensable parts of every day life, which cannot be lived on a purely rational basis. This even applies to the world of science, for setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope." (Faith and Science, George Ellis)

2. "So while there can be no doubt as to the impact science has made on modern society, both beneficial and detrimental, and no denying that the majority of people place great faith in it (despite those who claim it cannot be rationally justified), one must question how distinguishable it is from other branches of knowledge such as philosophy and religion." (Philosophy and Science, "The Scientific Method: The Logic of Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Faith")

3. ". . .what about things like atoms, electrons, and quarks: things not seen in the normal sense of the word but inferred? They are internal parts of the models science builds and taking them to be definite parts of reality is an act of faith [emphasis added]. . . . Following Poincare, I rather take their existence as a matter of convention and convenience. Are they really there. Who knows? (Quantum Diaries, Byron Jennings, "The Role of Faith in Science")

4. "Science seeks understanding. However, faith seeks 'wonderstanding.' I long for the days when people of faith linger in mysteries finding satisfaction not in understanding, but in the unification of 'wonderstanding.'" (The Blog, Victor Udoewa, "The Different Roles of Science and Faith")

There are dozens of articles in which the authors agree with what is posted above. The point of my original post is nicely summarized in 1. above: "Setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope."
 
skyrider44 said:
Thank you for your thoughtfulness in reviving my position re. the role that faith plays in the scientific method. Note the following:

1. "Faith and hope are indispensable parts of every day life, which cannot be lived on a purely rational basis. This even applies to the world of science, for setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope." (Faith and Science, George Ellis)

2. "So while there can be no doubt as to the impact science has made on modern society, both beneficial and detrimental, and no denying that the majority of people place great faith in it (despite those who claim it cannot be rationally justified), one must question how distinguishable it is from other branches of knowledge such as philosophy and religion." (Philosophy and Science, "The Scientific Method: The Logic of Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Faith")

3. ". . .what about things like atoms, electrons, and quarks: things not seen in the normal sense of the word but inferred? They are internal parts of the models science builds and taking them to be definite parts of reality is an act of faith [emphasis added]. . . . Following Poincare, I rather take their existence as a matter of convention and convenience. Are they really there. Who knows? (Quantum Diaries, Byron Jennings, "The Role of Faith in Science")

4. "Science seeks understanding. However, faith seeks 'wonderstanding.' I long for the days when people of faith linger in mysteries finding satisfaction not in understanding, but in the unification of 'wonderstanding.'" (The Blog, Victor Udoewa, "The Different Roles of Science and Faith")

There are dozens of articles in which the authors agree with what is posted above. The point of my original post is nicely summarized in 1. above: "Setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope."
Click to expand...


  1. Science is a method to separate faith from fact. It's purpose is empirical not faith based. The only "faith" is that which is borne of the consistency of physical laws. I have faith that I will survive a trip in an elevator because of the precision of elevator craftsman relying on physical laws to construct a machine with a known success rate.
  2. Scientists wonder. That's what drives scientists. The wonder of and the need to know. Science is just a method but the people that utilize science are humans who don't rely on superstition and myth but seek to answer the mysteries of nature. Symphony of Science.
  3. Leaving aside the uncertainty principle, there is nothing more precise than the predictions and the measurements we can make at the quantum and cosmic level.
  4. Science isn't an ideology. It's a method. To say that science provides good and bad things for society is to say that logic and reason provide good and bad things for society. Or use of science is only as good as our morality and our ethics.
Religion teaches people to be satisfied with Iron age mythology to answer questions. Science (which is to say those who engage in science) is not satisifed with cheap superstition. It wants to know the truth.
 
skyrider44 said:
Thank you for your thoughtfulness in reviving my position re. the role that faith plays in the scientific method. Note the following:

1. "Faith and hope are indispensable parts of every day life, which cannot be lived on a purely rational basis. This even applies to the world of science, for setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope." (Faith and Science, George Ellis)

2. "So while there can be no doubt as to the impact science has made on modern society, both beneficial and detrimental, and no denying that the majority of people place great faith in it (despite those who claim it cannot be rationally justified), one must question how distinguishable it is from other branches of knowledge such as philosophy and religion." (Philosophy and Science, "The Scientific Method: The Logic of Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Faith")

3. ". . .what about things like atoms, electrons, and quarks: things not seen in the normal sense of the word but inferred? They are internal parts of the models science builds and taking them to be definite parts of reality is an act of faith [emphasis added]. . . . Following Poincare, I rather take their existence as a matter of convention and convenience. Are they really there. Who knows? (Quantum Diaries, Byron Jennings, "The Role of Faith in Science")

4. "Science seeks understanding. However, faith seeks 'wonderstanding.' I long for the days when people of faith linger in mysteries finding satisfaction not in understanding, but in the unification of 'wonderstanding.'" (The Blog, Victor Udoewa, "The Different Roles of Science and Faith")

There are dozens of articles in which the authors agree with what is posted above. The point of my original post is nicely summarized in 1. above: "Setting up a scientific project is an exercise in hope."
Click to expand...

1) faith and hope are very different things.
2) We observe that electrons exist by virtue of electronic devices. No faith required.
3) see #2.
4) that's gibberish that has nothing to do with "the role that faith plays in the scientific method"
 
The wonder of nature through science.

This notion that science is just cold hard facts and no wonder is just nonsense. A child that asks "why?" is a scientist. An adult who is a scientist is a child that never stopped asking why. There is great wonder in science and great mysteries to be answered. We've split the atom and decoded DNA. We went to the Moon and now we are finding extrasolar planets. That is some super cool stuff to get you started.

Science - as woo as you want - YouTube

Richard Feynman - Doubt and Uncertainty - YouTube

Lawrence Krauss on Q&A - Science vs Religion

Don't let anyone tell you that science has no wonder. It could not exist without wonder.
 
skyrider44 said:
<equivocation snip, for space>
Click to expand...

Well equivocated!

(You may have overlooked that "hoping an experiment works", and "hoping to discover something new", and "having confidence that adhering to standards of scientific inquiry will result in dependable, reproducible results" are NOT the same as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", or "believing things without evidence for them". Nicely alluded to in your point 4., about "different roles". Don't worry--it's really hard to get this stuff right.)
 
Skyrider,
I find it interesting that you simultaneously asked for the model of evolved conscience and then go on to try and equate science with faith.

The model that was presented by randfan is a detailed description with each step documented by evidence and verified by experiments. The model is not complete or perfect. But it fits the known observable data the best. And with new information, this model will be edited to improve it.

You call this process faith.

Contrast this with the model you propose : "god created conscience"
This model provides no insight.
This model provides no detail.
This model provides no mechanistic information nor does it provide any avenue to develop a mechanism.
This model fails to explain why animals exhibit various social behaviors with various sets of morality/conscience.

You call this process faith. ... But to what end?


Do you hope that be calling both faith you raise the stature of your faith?
Or do you hope to insult science by equating it to a process that provides no new information?
 
Science often gives us the answer 'We don't know. But we're going to find out!'

Religion gives us the answer 'We know it is thus, because god told me so. Trust me!'
 
skyrider44 said:
Thank you!
Click to expand...

It's what I do.:)

The Greek roots for hagio+graphy and dogma are benign, but words become loaded in English through controversy.

Lots of words have semantically drifted and retained the original meaning for decades until this first meaning eventually vanishes. There are usually quite interesting and traceable reasons for a lexical item taking on a pejorative sense in literature.

"to take care of someone" has become a sinister euphemism relatively recently...but people generally have little trouble disambiguating .;)

For some reason, examples of words taking on a negative metaphorical meaning often relate to philosophy and religions.
 
Olowkow said:
The word HAGIOGRAPHY has a certain pejorative set of baggage, much like "dogma" does, in one of its meanings [2].

 1. biography of saints or venerated persons
2. idealizing or idolizing biography

The second accepted meaning gives rise to my understanding of the word when it is used:There are some excellent examples in the history books, but one of my favorites are the writings about Kim Jong Il:
Click to expand...

A book I had in mind is called "The Story of the Church", by Inez Smith Davis.
 
Last edited:
Kopji said:
If anyone is questioning their faith I only wish them well, even if they decide to stay.

I kept my scriptures for a long time. It was helpful to gather them together and place them in a storage box in case I ever believed again. I threw them all out one day a year or two later without opening the box again. It would have been too hard to just say I was wrong all at once. This is really the best advice I have if someone is really thinking of leaving - take it in steps. And maybe always expect to feel a little messed up, like having been raised in a protective bubble and then suddenly free.

It helps that the Book of Mormon I was raised on has different verse numbering than the ones the LDS use (there are three different versions). The better to avoid scripture and verse bickering. Our D&C was different also. The LDS Book of Moses is rejected as falseness so I never feel the need to defend it. In place of 'The Pearl of Great Price' is the "Inspired Version" - a sort of inspired revision of the KJV that was done by Smith, and carried sewn into the clothing of Emma Smith during the time of the Mormon Wars.

To say something kind about Joseph Smith? Much of what I was taught is called 'hagiography', a word worth looking up if you are not familiar with it. Even today there is no DNA evidence that says any of the women who claimed to be his wives had children by him. I sort of wish that there was some kind of definitive evidence that would make have made the journey easier.

JS was more than a simple fraud though, I get the feeling that at some level he wanted to be leader of a great religious change of direction - and he did that but also had a certain blindness about his failures that is required of all great leaders. There is a bit of human floatsam and jetsam in his wake - look up the story of Martin Harris, one of the 'three witnesses'. Maybe make that two witnesses but three sounds so much better.

I'd predict that Mormonism will be the last bastion of uncritical thinking in America, long after the regular Christians have turned out the lights on literalism and supernatural beliefs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that, Kopji!

So, skywalker44, why are you avoiding discussing Smith's fraud in the case of the BoA?
 
skyrider44 said:
There are dozens of articles in which the authors agree with what is posted above.
Click to expand...
The fact that you can find people who agree with you does not make you right. After all, several million people agree with you about the validity of the BoM.

The arguments that faith plays a part in the scientific method that you quote appear to either grossly mischaracterise scientists and the scientific method or redefine faith to mean something else entirely (e.g. hope). Such arguments may satisfy the sort of people who swallow Mormon apologetics but they aren't going to fly here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom