I had somebody approach me today and give me a written statement that was intended to represent the position of his family, and he wondered how I felt about it. It said:

“We reject any idea that would influence our way of life that is not plausibly supportable by science”

What makes this encounter remarkable is that I would consider this person to be very religious. For example, he strongly believes in a life after death (a “here-after”). I pointed out that most people believe that the idea of a “here-after” is not plausibly supportable by science, and his reply was “that’s true, but a belief in a here-after should not influence a person’s way of life…they should still live a good life, and be ethical, and treat people well, and be honest, all in the same way, whether they believe in a here-after or not”.

Similarly, he maintains that the ideas of “evolution” vs. “creationism” vs. “intelligent design” should not influence the way a person lives their life. Again, they should live ethical, honest lives, and treat people well, and not let those competing ideas influence how they live, or how they treat their family, or how they treat their fellow human beings.

Next, he explained that “plausibly supportable by science” does not mean “provable by science”. It just means you should be able to present a plausible argument that is based on science, and in so doing, it moves the discussion away from religion and moves it into a discussion on science.

This obviously goes against a lot of what the LDS church teaches, but I find his logic to be very compelling.

What do you think?

Nevin



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2016 12:48AM by nevinpratt.

So is he giving away 10% of his income?

No (he's not Mormon). Although after talking with him, I think he would not be against giving away 10% of his income if (1) he didn't need the money, and (2) it went to something that he considered to be a good and just cause.

It needs to be plausibly supportable by science.

Nevin

Nice that he explained what "plausibly supported by science" does not mean, but it would be nice if he explained what it does mean, because I don't have a clue based on the OP.

He seems to be saying that whether or not one accepts the bat-s*** claims of the Christian fundies, one can still live a moral life. OK, fine, but what does that have to do with being plausibly supported by science? I'm confused, and I suspect he is too.

It is also not obvious to me that whatever his point was goes against a great deal of what LDS Inc teaches. Actually, Mormon men are quite comfortable in careers in engineering and science (women, not so much, but that's another topic). LDS Inc is not anti-science. Yes, some declarations of earlier GAs, like a young earth, are stupid. Mormon scientists simply ignore that kind of nonsense, and current GAs just avoid the subjects entirely.

The idea of paying tithing rather than feeding your children or meeting your debt obligations would get rejected. Science doesn't support that idea, and it causes harm among the people.

Dead-dunking everyone you can find in the history books would get rejected. Again, not supportable by science, and consumes limited human resources (time, material to build temples, etc.) that would be better used on something else.

Divorcing someone just because they are no longer Mormon would get rejected. The idea is not supportable by science, and it causes harm.

Need I go on?

I guess what is missing is a deeper explanation of the part that says "our way of life", and his view of the rules that should govern how we treat each other. Or in other words, what is meant by "our way of life".

Nevin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2016 01:20AM by nevinpratt.

Yes, you need to go on. How are the examples you gave even scientific questions?

Stamp collecting is "not supported by science". Neither is not stamp collecting. What has science got to do with it? Either position is a value judgment, not a scientific fact. For that matter, deciding that resources could be put to better use that in dead-dunking, or stamp collecting, is also a value judgement, not scientific fact.

I can make a good scientific explanation for why a spouse would divorce when the other spouse leaves LDS Inc. The spouse feels tribal solidarity with the religion is more important that the marriage. Whether the tribe should be more important than the marriage is a value judgement. Either decision can be defended as reasonable. Would you divorce a spouse who decided to be polygamous? Would that be anti-scientific of you?

I think your mental image of what constitutes science and what I think constitutes science are wildly divergent, which is why I am confused. I think you are going to have to carry on in this thread without me.

OK. I think the main part that is missing in his statement is an explanation of how he determines what is valuable in life, and what is not. He and I share the same beliefs on this (which is what lead to our conversation), and I once wrote a little bit about this at the bottom of this page (which he agreed with me on):

http://pictures.bountifulbaby.com/gunstore/dojang.html

Another missing part (that he and I have discussed in depth on prior conversations) is the fact that he prioritizes family as the *most* important priority, church as the *least* important priority, and everything else is somewhere in between. (to him, church is nothing more than a sort of "school" that is meant to help you do better in the other parts of life, which means that it is not *church* that is most important, but rather the rest of life that is most important).

That's not a common prioritization. But it also relates to what "Value" means to him. And, the realization of that "Value" needs to be plausibly supportable by science.

Nevin



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2016 02:08AM by nevinpratt.

And does the spouse divorcing due to unsupported church reasons meet the "not injuring others" ethical demand? I don't think so.

Perhaps you would like to make this a more formal and doctrinal system, more like the formal and doctrinal lds system. Maybe this works for you.

I actually think his thinking is fairly balanced, even elegant. Of course the devil is in the details--it always is! That is what living in a nuanced view of reality means.

I think if Jesus were alive today, he'd say pretty much the same thing. You don't know what you don't know, even if your whole tribe pretends to know. If wasn't okay to not know, God would have told you himself in no uncertain terms.

I spoke for about an hour with this person. He also said that to him, the "religion of Jesus Christ" and the "gospel of Jesus Christ" are synonymous, and mean the same thing. And additionally, he said that in his opinion, the religion and gospel of Jesus Christ will always be in harmony with science, and he rejects anything that contradicts that idea.

Which means he pretty much rejects most of what the religious world teaches.

But, he believes in Jesus Christ, and in a here-after, very strongly.

Nevin

What a strange thing to do.

I am not sure in what context this came up. However, I find it truly odd that he put this in writing,gives it to people asking their opinion and states that this is position of his family. I suspect that the position of his family would represent the position of the parents, or perhaps just one parent (him).

I am just really very curious what happened to this guy to make him feel that he needs to do this.

As to writing it down, he did so because I *asked* him to. He came up with the statement spontaneously, as we talked about science and religion together. I stopped him on that statement, and asked him to write it down and email or text it to me. And so he did. He did so because he trusts me, and he knew I already understood a lot of what he believes, and he also wanted to know if I could see any holes in the logic of the statement.

Other than the missing piece I mentioned above (describing what is meant by "our way of life", and how that is to be measured), I don't see a problem in the statement. At all.

Nevin



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2016 01:41AM by nevinpratt.

I find this whole thing weird. His idea that “evolution” vs. “creationism” vs. “intelligent design” should not influence the way a person lives their life is just bonkers. Ever heard of opposition to stem-cell research and other issues that arise out of that kind of thinking. smh.

It is not needful to relate *opposition* to stem-cell research with believing in, say, intelligent design. If anything, it suggests the opposite... e.g., (for example) stem-cell research might be done by a human to accomplish intelligent design.

And, based on early Mormon theology, God *is* a human being. Lorenzo Snow said "as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become". Also Parley Pratt said "men, God, and angels are the same species".

So, if you believe that man and God are the same species, then supporting stem-cell research is in complete harmony with the ideas of intelligent design.

Nevin



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2016 10:33AM by nevinpratt.

Even if you believe that man and God are two different species, intelligent design implies that God designed man to think and be creative. Stem-cell research seems to fall within that purview. It presents ethical questions, of course, that should be addressed. This is consistent with Nevin's friend's world-view.

On the surface, it sounds reasonable.
But dig down, and it's not.

Because so many of the things he "believes in" that aren't plausibly supportable by science DO affect his daily life and actions, though he seems to claim otherwise. Individually, the effects might be tiny. As a whole, probably not so much.

Belief in an afterlife, for example...people who believe in one, and who believe that only certain kinds of life-choices or actions get you into it, are affected daily by that belief.

Bottom line: what reasons does he give for making "living a good life [whatever subjective things that means], being ethical and honest, and treating other people well?

I happen to agree those are "good" ways to live. I'd be willing to be, though, that my reasons are different than his.

>
> Belief in an afterlife, for example...people who
> believe in one, and who believe that only certain
> kinds of life-choices or actions get you into it,
> are affected daily by that belief.

Whoa, wait a minute. You misunderstand. No specific actions are required to get you into the afterlife described by the person in the OP. We will *all* go there. But if you want to achieve any specific measure of success, by whatever yardstick you personally wish to measure it by, you must do whatever it takes to accomplish that. Your specific location of residence is irrelevant to that fact.

With this philosophy, *people* create heaven, whether they do it in the afterlife, or in this life.


> Bottom line: what reasons does he give for making
> "living a good life , being ethical and honest,
> and treating other people well?

At the very least, it would be the same reasons an atheist might give for "living a good life, being ethical and honest, and treating other people well". It would be based on the particular result that person wished to achieve for themselves, regardless of their place of residence.

Nevin

“We reject any idea that would influence our way of life that is not plausibly supportable by science”

I assume that "plausibly supported by science" means (1) there is at least some scientific evidence that supports the idea in question; and (2) given science generally, there is an probability assignment (supporting the word "plausibility") that renders the idea reasonable.

Taking first, the idea of life after death, I know of no "scientific evidence" that supports such an idea--if we insist upon so-called "hard science" involving experimental verification. However, there is, of course, anecdotal evidence for such an idea, which seems to be insufficient by the above standard. Moreover, given the lack of any scientific evidence, there is no scientifically supported probability assignment, much less one that is reasonable. In short, to believe in life after death, you have to rely upon anecdotal reports, or personal subjective experiences, neither of which are scientific in the required sense.

But, now consider morality; i.e. the idea that some actions are "morally right" and others "morally wrong," ideas that are highly pertinent to our "way of life." There is no scientific evidence for this idea either, and therefore such an idea is also not scientific. Our moral intuitions are just that, moral intuitions, and nothing more--at least scientifically.

In short, the whole program proposed here is impractical. Science may well be the foundation for our beliefs, but it can't be the sole basis for our actions or worldview; i.e. our way of life. Moreover, the idea of "scientific evidence" is itself problematic and subjective and scientists do not always agree that a some fact constitutes evidence for a given idea.

You overlooked the part of the phrase that said "that would influence our way of life". The implication of including that phrase means that belief in, or non-belief in, life after death would be irrelevant to how your life should be lived.

I will follow up with more later this evening. I've got three different appointments pending right now.

Later...

Nevin

nevinpratt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You overlooked the part of the phrase that said
> "that would influence our way of life". The
> implication of including that phrase means that
> belief in, or non-belief in, life after death
> would be irrelevant to how your life should be
> lived.

I don't think we did; everybody I know that believes in an afterlife *is* influenced as to how they live their life by that belief. If they think you have to do or believe certain things to get into that afterlife, they try to do or believe those things. My own lack of belief in an afterlife means I *don't* try to do or believe things that are supposed to get me into one.

Basically, we're highly skeptical of the claim that your beliefs don't affect how you live. I've yet to meet a person where that's the case.

This man does not understand epistemology

First of all, the original phrase in the OP is not mine. It is somebody else's. However, I think I am going to endorse it, adopt it, and defend it. I like it.

Now, as to the influence the belief in an afterlife may or may not have on behavior, let me word it another way...

...the person who coined the phrase believes there is NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE between the afterlife and this life. In both locations, industry exists, people exist, family exists, governments exist, etc. With this mind set, it is completely irrelevant where a person resides. They can reside in China, the USA, or anywhere else on or OFF the earth. It does not matter where they live (exist), and does not effect how a person should behave.

With this mind set, a belief in the here-after really does not matter (i.e, should not effect your behavior). Your existence there is nothing more than another location where you exist, the same as if you traveled to another country here on earth (except you are not allowed to carry any luggage with you when you go there :-) ). It does not matter where you are-- the same rules apply equally in all places where you live, or exist.

I like the idea. I think it helps to weed out all of the "Harry Potter" beliefs, and gets people to focus on life in this existence, rather than some other-world existence.

Nevin



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2016 03:56PM by nevinpratt.

So he's just making stuff up. He believes in "Jesus," but not in the things "Jesus" said (about, for example, heaven and hell).
And it sounds like he "redefines" supernatural beliefs, in rather odd (and made-up) ways, so that they *can* fit his main premise.

Which makes me wonder: why hold those beliefs if they're irrelevant to life, now OR in some "hereafter?"

Hey, to each his own. If that's what floats his boat, great. Me, I find his ideas self-contradictory, not at all plausible (scientifically or otherwise), and chock full of the necessity of a great deal of rationalizing and redefining to try and make any sense of any of it.

But if that's what does it for him, good for him.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So he's just making stuff up. He believes in
> "Jesus," but not in the things "Jesus" said
> (about, for example, heaven and hell).
> And it sounds like he "redefines" supernatural
> beliefs, in rather odd (and made-up) ways, so that
> they *can* fit his main premise.

Heaven exists, because the people there created it.

Hell is a state of mind. As such, it also exists.

According to him, it is the ignorant (i.e., those who lack knowledge) people of the world that chose to redefine what Jesus represented, and instead chose to create supernatural beliefs out of them (probably in order to justify themselves into bringing the people into bondage).

And, much of the meaning of being "saved" is simply to save people from those superstitious Harry Potterisms. This would also allow them to start moving forward towards worthwhile goals again (defining "worthwhile" as those goals that each individual chooses to pursue for themselves, as long as they do not infringe on this same right in others).

Otherwise, they are simply "kicking against the pricks" (Acts 9:5), and not accomplishing anything.

> Which makes me wonder: why hold those beliefs if they're irrelevant to life

It's only the Harry Potteristic superstitious beliefs that are irrelevant to life. You instead live life in a way that brings value to yourself (where *you* judge what is valuable) and also brings value to society (where society judges what is valuable, and *not* you). And you continue to do that *forever*.

That's part of what I explained at the bottom of this page:

http://pictures.bountifulbaby.com/gunstore/dojang.html

Nevin

nevinpratt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you continue to
> do that *forever*.

OK. Except all the evidence we have shows we *don't* do that "forever." That we begin to exist, live, and then cease to exist.

So, yeah...making stuff up. Like I said, if that floats yer boat, terrific. Just don't expect me to believe it :)

> http://pictures.bountifulbaby.com/gunstore/dojang.
> html

Nice. And for the life we have evidence of, I'm all for it :)

Under this philosophy, even if we do *not* exist forever, it would change nothing. Under this philosophy, when evaluating an idea, principle, or doctrine, you can completely disregard ideas of heaven in that evaluation. You can evaluate the idea purely on what it's theoretical benefit is to mankind on this earth.

This works because, under this philosophy, it's just *people* in heaven, and *people* on earth. If something can work for people here, it can work there, and if it cannot work here, it cannot work there. And visa-versa.

There's no magic wands. Anything that gets done must be done by *people*, regardless of where they reside (heaven or earth). They may have whatever set of tools they have to help them, just as we do. But it's still just *people*.

So you don't need to worry about the *there*. Just concentrate on the *here*, and make this world a better place for the people who are here. I.e., just work towards creating a heaven on earth, and the rest will take care of itself, and quit expecting other people to do that for you, in some kind of magical rapture or 2nd coming or something.

I very much like this philosophy.

Nevin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2016 07:51PM by nevinpratt.

nevinpratt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I very much like this philosophy.

Great. Run with it.

There are, though, "magic wands" in it. "people in heaven" is as unevidenced and implausible as "angels in heaven." And if they're unnecessary to the "philosophy," why include them?

> "people
> in heaven" is as unevidenced and implausible as
> "angels in heaven." And if they're unnecessary to
> the "philosophy," why include them?


There is no need to include them, if that is a person's wish. Or if they wish to include them, that's fine too. It changes nothing, according to this philosophy.

Nevin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2016 08:46PM by nevinpratt.