On knowledge, observation, and differing modes

[One Brow]

In another thread, I implied the difference between scientific and religious evidence was that the former was "observational, repeatable, objective evidence".

Triangle Man indicated that religious evidence was both repeatable and observational, and while I don't deny the former for some types of religious evidence, I was curious what he meant by the latter.

If you want to test a scientific hypothesis you will set up an experiment and observe during the experiment.
Depending on the experiment you may be using the senses sight, sound, smell, touch, taste to observe. You may be using any of a number of measurements.

If you want to test a spiritual hypothesis you will set up an experiment and observe during the experiment.
Depending on the experiment you are most likely to use your sense of spirit to observe. A tool I can think of for getting a measurement is your own conscience/spiritual sensor for lack of a better term.

ob·ser·va·tion
noun \ˌäb-sər-ˈvā-shən, -zər-\

: a statement about something you have noticed : a comment or remark: the act of careful watching and listening : the activity of paying close attention to someone or something in order to get information

: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments

In the offered definition, I think we can dismiss "statement" and "comment" as not being relevant to this discussion. If I am wrong, feel free to let me know.

First, I'm not sure what a spiritual experiment really means. Is it referring to devising a testing scenario, setting that into motion, and then monitoring a result? Since we are discussing non-physical experiments, what is the means of initiating them? Prayer? What can the result be? Good feelings or bad feelings? If that is what we are discussing, I would agree it is repeatable, but I don't think that qualifies as an observation. If I am working on a difficult mathematical theorem, writing a useful program, or playing the optimal move in a game, that does thinking of different possibilities, weighing them over, sometimes even putting them out of my mind for a short while, the answers I come up with are not observations, but calculations. I used various processes, some of them intuitive short-cuts, to arrive at a decision.

On the other hand, if the result is some sort of physical occurrence, is it well-defined beforehand? Something like "If I should do X, have the next car to pass my house be green"? That would lead to observation, but I don't think such experiments are generally repeated.

If the occurrence is not well-defined, something like "Give me a sign", you're not really observing anything. Anyone who keeps an eye out for "something" will see something; there's no discrimination.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

In the offered definition, I think we can dismiss "statement" and "comment" as not being relevant to this discussion. If I am wrong, feel free to let me know.

I have no issue with that.

First, I'm not sure what a spiritual experiment really means. Is it referring to devising a testing scenario, setting that into motion, and then monitoring a result? Since we are discussing non-physical experiments, what is the means of initiating them? Prayer? What can the result be? Good feelings or bad feelings? If that is what we are discussing, I would agree it is repeatable, but I don't think that qualifies as an observation. If I am working on a difficult mathematical theorem, writing a useful program, or playing the optimal move in a game, that does thinking of different possibilities, weighing them over, sometimes even putting them out of my mind for a short while, the answers I come up with are not observations, but calculations. I used various processes, some of them intuitive short-cuts, to arrive at a decision.

I'll use this as a similar example.
Let's just say somebody has been not feeling well every once in a while, and it is a particular feeling with particular symptoms for them. After quite a few experiences they notice that it generally happens about an hour after they have eaten, but it is not regular.They write down some of the symptoms, that they are unusually tired, have an upset stomach, and sometimes get a rash on their arms. They start to pay more attention to what they eat, and see if there is a correlation between what they eat and how they feel. They start to look into the ingredients of the foods they ate before the instances of not feeling well. They may notice that there is a particular food or food group that is consistently in the foods they eat when they feel this way. They might test their theory by eating some of what they think it is alone, and with nothing else to interfere and see if it truly is tied to this food. They may even go to their doctor and be tested to see if they have allergies to these foods, or consult their doctor to see what they know about something like this.

In the same way the person in this example has experimented with their feelings to find some answers to how they feel at certain times, so can a person experiment with their feelings in regards to activities that are spiritual in nature.

While you mention it is a non-physical experiment, I say it is both physical and spiritual. There has to be a physical portion to it as we are both physical and spiritual beings.

It can relate to prayer, scripture study, helping a neighbor, giving to the poor, service, pretty much any activity you can test.
The results that are easiest to tie to the activity is what you mentioned, good feelings or bad feelings. There are other possible results, but in my opinion they are more difficult to tie to an activity at times, at least on the spiritual side. Keep in mind there can also be physical results.

Also of note, a true experiment means having an open mind and heart to whatever the true result is. If you only go through the motions and really want the experiment to fail, or the opposite really want it to succeed, are you really performing an experiment? Are you really open to what is going on or are you only going to see what you want to see. This cuts both ways, and most of the time only the person performing the experiment will really know where they stand.

On the other hand, if the result is some sort of physical occurrence, is it well-defined beforehand? Something like "If I should do X, have the next car to pass my house be green"? That would lead to observation, but I don't think such experiments are generally repeated.

If the occurrence is not well-defined, something like "Give me a sign", you're not really observing anything. Anyone who keeps an eye out for "something" will see something; there's no discrimination.

I personally don't think asking/looking for a sign like that is part of an experiment. Maybe that's the religion in me, where I've learned that sign seeking does not lead to anything good.

Basically the test of the Lord is to do what he has asked you to do, and see how it works out. That is the faith part. Test it out by doing it willingly to see if it is good.

I have tested the law of tithing. Mathematically it doesn't make sense that if I give 10% of my increase to the Lord, or His Church as I see it, that I will end up doing better than if I take that 10% and do what I want with it. I have tried it both ways, and I've had enough experiences in my life where I have always had what I need for myself and my family when I faithfully pay a full tithe even in the times that I add up my income and my expenses and there is no way my income will cover it... yet it does. I have also had the experience to know I've had some of my lowest and most difficult times financially and in other ways when I have not. Others may call it a coincidence, but for myself I know it was directly tied.

I have done the same testing to many other principles of the gospel. I still have testing to do on other principles I have not brought myself to test. Do I believe they are true based on what others have said that I trust, yes. Do I know it for myself yet, no. When I get around to testing it for myself then I will know and be better for knowing one way or the other.

 

[green]

I think these whole science vs God debates are dumb.

If God exists, and if he is the all-powerful creator of the universe, then he follows the laws of science. It's really that simple.

These debates are useless and accomplish nothing, because if God exists, the he and science are the same.

p.s. Joseph Smith taught the same thing as this. So does Stephen Hawking.

Believe in God, don't believe in God, but when it comes to scientific discovery, he is irrelevant. Because discovering true scientific principles allows you to discover the laws that God used to create us all.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I think these whole science vs God debates are dumb.

If God exists, and if he is the all-powerful creator of the universe, then he follows the laws of science. It's really that simple.

These debates are useless and accomplish nothing, because if God exists, the he and science are the same.

p.s. Joseph Smith taught the same thing as this. So does Stephen Hawking.

Believe in God, don't believe in God, but when it comes to scientific discovery, he is irrelevant. Because discovering true scientific principles allows you to discover the laws that God used to create us all.

Wrong thread bro. Might have meant to post this in the science v. creationism thread I think.

Just talking about experiments and stuff all up in here.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think these whole science vs God debates are dumb.

If God exists, and if he is the all-powerful creator of the universe, then he follows the laws of science. It's really that simple.

These debates are useless and accomplish nothing, because if God exists, the he and science are the same.

p.s. Joseph Smith taught the same thing as this. So does Stephen Hawking.

Believe in God, don't believe in God, but when it comes to scientific discovery, he is irrelevant. Because discovering true scientific principles allows you to discover the laws that God used to create us all.

Gameface wants the "law of science" that turns water into wine.
I want the "law of science" for resurrection.

 

[green]

Gameface wants the "law of science" that turns water into wine.
I want the "law of science" for resurrection.

Right. So if we don't know how to do it, it can't happen.

Ha ha. Dumb argument. Sorry man. So we will never be able to cure cancer or HIV, how did we learn how to fly, the earth must still be flat, etc.

 

[MVP]

Gameface wants the "law of science" that turns water into wine.
I want the "law of science" for resurrection.

So basically you want "law of science" for myths.

 

[PearlWatson]

Right. So if we don't know how to do it, it can't happen.

Ha ha. Dumb argument. Sorry man. So we will never be able to cure cancer or HIV, how did we learn how to fly, the earth must still be flat, etc.

I didn't say it couldn't happen. I want the "law of science" that makes it happen.

AKMVP wants the "law of science" that turns lead into gold, great alchemist green.

Triangle Man wants the "law of science" for walking on water.

 

[LogGrad98]

Um, I would like to have the law of science that turns lead into gold. Please and thank you.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I didn't say it couldn't happen. I want the "law of science" that makes it happen.

AKMVP wants the "law of science" that turns lead into gold, great alchemist green.

Triangle Man wants the "law of science" for walking on water.

Hey, don't pigeon hole me. I want them all.

 

[The Midnight]

I think these whole science vs God debates are dumb.

If God exists, and if he is the all-powerful creator of the universe, then he follows the laws of science. It's really that simple.

These debates are useless and accomplish nothing, because if God exists, the he and science are the same.

p.s. Joseph Smith taught the same thing as this. So does Stephen Hawking.

Believe in God, don't believe in God, but when it comes to scientific discovery, he is irrelevant. Because discovering true scientific principles allows you to discover the laws that God used to create us all.

Clearly if he created the universe (which is governed by these "Laws"), then it follows that he must have also created these laws, which in effect means that he operates "outside" of these laws and is not bound by them.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Clearly if he created the universe (which is governed by these "Laws"), then it follows that he must have also created these laws, which in effect means that he operates "outside" of these laws and is not bound by them.

I'm not on board with your logic leap to he created the universe to he created the laws to he is not bound by the laws.

 

[The Midnight]

I'm not on board with your logic leap to he created the universe to he created the laws to he is not bound by the laws.

Which part exactly that you're not on board with?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Which part exactly that you're not on board with?

The part where he created the laws... and the part where he doesn't have to follow the laws.

I'm not following the logic jump... I don't think because he created the universe then naturally he has to have created the laws.

 

[The Midnight]

The part where he created the laws... and the part where he doesn't have to follow the laws.

I'm not following the logic jump... I don't think because he created the universe then naturally he has to have created the laws.

If he had created the Universe, the space, the Suns, the Earth, etc, what is it about the laws that he can't create?

 

[green]

Clearly if he created the universe (which is governed by these "Laws"), then it follows that he must have also created these laws, which in effect means that he operates "outside" of these laws and is not bound by them.

Wrong. If he created these laws, then only by following them perfectly, could anything work. You cannot operate outside of any law. This is magic ********.

 

[green]

If you "create" a law, then don't follow it, it isn't a law.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[PearlWatson]

If you "create" a law, then don't follow it, it isn't a law.

It just doesn't work that way.

It does for congress.
They make laws they ain't subject to, but the rest of us are.
In effect they are above the law.
I think there are different degrees of laws...heavenly vs. earthly
but I've also made your same point that just because we don't know the law behind it doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[babe]

It does for congress.
They make laws they ain't subject to, but the rest of us are.
In effect they are above the law.
I think there are different degrees of laws...heavenly vs. earthly
but I've also made your same point that just because we don't know the law behind it doesn't mean there isn't one.

The problem, generally, with statism in all its monstrous permutations, is that the honchos are lawless ******** who'll throw everybody in prison on a whim just to make a naked display of their raw impunity. Look at Obama and his "Affordable Care Act". Wink at him, slip him a mil, and he'll wink back and make you exempt. And he hired 16000 new revenue agents to round up the po' folk and make'm pay their tax for it.

 

[babe]

Wrong. If he created these laws, then only by following them perfectly, could anything work. You cannot operate outside of any law. This is magic ********.

This is a fundamental difference of Mormonism and the traditional Christians following from Constantine. The fundamental assertion of the Trinity, and the almightiness and sovereign power of "God", is that He is the creator of everything including the laws which govern the Universe. Mormons place even God in the web of eternity, say "intelligence", "spirit" and "physical matter" have always existed or "cannot be created or made", and God only uses His understanding and obedience to existing principles to organize and propagate his domain. In early Mormonism, it was stated that man is in an endless or eternal process of advancement, following a pattern that has been followed before through endless cycles. . . .

Jesus was in the Mormon camp of philosophy, teaching that his doctrine was not his own, but was the doctrine of his father, and he set an example of following the pattern. Jesus did not claim to be the originator of the Gospel. the Creator of the world, or the initiator of "law". He specifically claimed to be subject to His Father, obedient to the will or law of His Father, and taught personal discipline based on principle. . . . saying that if we will follow him in that, that we will become like Him and His Father.