tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post2804349197388155145..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Thomas Nagel's Apostasy: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly FalseJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43476344033327449882013-05-05T11:25:11.454-05:002013-05-05T11:25:11.454-05:00So just because the answers in science aren't ...So just because the answers in science aren't quite adequate yet I'm supposed to pick a religion and believe on faith that it's true until science proves otherwise?Forrestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37052668172770971722013-04-30T14:58:29.237-05:002013-04-30T14:58:29.237-05:00Sounds like a classic atheist response. Actually, ...Sounds like a classic atheist response. Actually, the idea is not that science hasn't provided an explanation for the origin of life, it's that the explanation which it has provided is a completely inadequate one. The current scientific view fails to account for many things for which religion provides a more plausible explanation, albeit not a scientific one. It's not just about the gaps, but also all of the inadequacies in between. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57514553829944506642013-04-30T13:28:14.316-05:002013-04-30T13:28:14.316-05:00Personally, I don't believe that the view God ...Personally, I don't believe that the view God brought the laws of the universe into existence is really supported in LDS scripture. This misconception lies in confusing the laws which God instituted for the salvation of mankind with the physical laws of nature. Logically, the laws of God have to conform to the laws of nature, but they are two completely different things. The laws of God are said to be eternal only because there are no other conditions for salvation. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7969577092785391082013-04-14T08:28:36.687-05:002013-04-14T08:28:36.687-05:00This seems like a classic god of the gaps proposal...This seems like a classic god of the gaps proposal here. The idea is that science has not yet figured it out there fore God did it. Looking back in history this has never proved to be a good position for religion to take. It takes a bigger man to admit temporary ignorance than to claim knowledge in absentia. Faith is not knowledge that's why it's called faith.Forrestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86780329812320892462013-04-12T15:24:47.334-05:002013-04-12T15:24:47.334-05:00I love how you present this. As a physicist the o...I love how you present this. As a physicist the origin of intelligent life and life in general has always been fascinating to me. In my years of studying and theorizing I've stumbled upon a possible solution for all of the questions presented in this post and many more--and it's perfectly consistent with currently accepted science and interestingly enough the Gospel too. Anyway, no one I've talked to seems to care much about it though--so I've moved on with my life. I hope that someday others will come to understand that dead matter is not what makes intelligence, but 'intelligence' is what makes matter.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16427857038148694440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58883065506082267052013-04-12T01:10:54.300-05:002013-04-12T01:10:54.300-05:00What amazes me is this book was released just thre...What amazes me is this book was released just three weeks after Rupert Sheldrake's "Science Set Free" ("The Science Delusion" in the UK). Google for the Youtube video, which was a TEDx talk but thrown under the bus due to vocal critics.<br /><br />Dr Nigel covers much the same ground, but with some emphasis on consciousness.<br /><br />Stuart Hameroff has some great explanations of consciousness that I think tie into Sheldrake's work. The picture that emerges, for me, is that the creative process is a stream of consciousness, and that all living things in having a consciousness that is part of God yet striving in creative endeavor evolve ever more complexity and intelligence, Moses and Darwin were both correct. One school of thought separates God and his creation, the other doesn't.<br /><br />And thanks for distinguishing neo-Darwinism from Darwinism. I don't think Darwin would approve of the former.wage slavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793388813493777573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70263181934179768342013-04-11T09:35:59.320-05:002013-04-11T09:35:59.320-05:00Yes, Anthony, I have similar thoughts after readin...Yes, Anthony, I have similar thoughts after reading Nagel and think there really is room for some deeper discussion of what we really can deduce from the miniscule data we have. Accounting for the majesty of the basic laws and properties of matter needs to be done, or at least we need to recognize how majestic these properties are. Nagel's teleological approach may need to be taken up in the end. Heavy stuff. The cosmos really appears to have been designed, marvelously tailored, to provide for the possibility of intelligent life. It seems obvious that God must be responsible for that, not just a result of it. There is much to speculate on here - I will refrain. <br />Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51527789356130482092013-04-08T22:46:47.772-05:002013-04-08T22:46:47.772-05:00What Nagel objects to, as I see it, is the violati...What Nagel objects to, as I see it, is the violation by today's scientific dogma of Einstein's directive to make things as simple as possible, but not simpler - they've been made much too simple.<br /><br />After this life, we'll find that everything is, in fact, natural, including God. We'll find that we can't explain how intelligence is created because it is not created - it simply exists.<br /><br />Richard Dawkins illustrates a common error of science in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled", when he says: "That designer may well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but then that higher intelligence would itself had to [have] come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. He couldn't have just spontaneously jumped into existence, that's the point." He misses the boat when he assumes there must be a beginning, a first God. There is no beginning, thus no need for a first God to have sprung into existence.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83858763705902975882013-04-08T12:20:59.448-05:002013-04-08T12:20:59.448-05:00Very interesting.
A lot of Nagel's questions ...Very interesting.<br /><br />A lot of Nagel's questions could be inconclusively explored within the boundaries of Mormon thought itself. There are two views of God coexisting within Mormonism that aren't fully reconciled with each other: 1. God is an advanced engineer who mastered preexistent laws of nature with his intelligence. 2. God is the author of nature's laws; they weren't preexistent but came from God's will. View #2 has some support in the standard works, D&C 88 for example. View 1 is nevertheless widely held by Mormons and has roots in the idea that God was once a mortal man and became God by mastering certain principles. If one subscribes to view #1, then many of Nagel's questions remain unanswered within Mormon thought. Personally, I think view #2 doesn't explain all that much either because it only transfers questions about the existence of consciousness from "How did my consciousness come into being?" to "How did God's consciousness come into being?" The question of where moral laws come from is just as difficult to answer in Mormonism. Euthyphro's dilemma is just as applicable within Mormonism as any other theistic religion: is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it's moral? <br /><br />Thanks for the interesting post, Jeff. I just want to point out that theism in general or Mormon theism in particular does not adequately resolve all of Nagel's questions. Anthonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52924786693195885702013-04-08T05:51:25.875-05:002013-04-08T05:51:25.875-05:00Science liberated from God and morality is a bruta...Science liberated from God and morality is a brutal master. Some of the most violent and oppressive regimes in history have been proud of their scientific approach and relied on "science" for their crimes. Science is not the right tool to apply in making judgements about life and death issues. Science needs to be more humble and more aware of its limitations. Skepticonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86786215384238236882013-04-08T05:23:41.048-05:002013-04-08T05:23:41.048-05:00Very interesting!
Here is a link to a recent arti...Very interesting!<br /><br />Here is a link to a recent article that is more neuroscience and less philosophy.<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/neuroscience_needs_its_einstein/Paul 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48113892337790725442013-04-07T23:50:59.049-05:002013-04-07T23:50:59.049-05:00Thanks, Jeff. A great write up and analysis, as us...Thanks, Jeff. A great write up and analysis, as usual. I just realized I've been reading your blogs since 1997. Holy cow. <br /><br />geekgreghttp://latterdaysaint.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com