The New ATHEISM. and the Latter Day Saints.

[hauslern]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TMQYy8aP8U.

Exercise faith - Believe sun will raise tomorrow - act of faith
Grocery store - Have faith the store is there, etc - Been there before
School - faith that the staff and content will be there but then unless you heard the school was closing or not burnt down you go. - Unless I hear there was a fire I know it will be there
Science - faith is not irrational - Experiments require faith - belief their efforts will be productive
Scientific method - repeat experiment -
cured
Favour God
God of the gaps - God must existence in the gap. Gaps decreasing
Reveals God's handiwork
For Shades I am trying to explain how the speaker was emphasizing the importance of faith in our everyday life.


Counter Arguments
Big Bang - ordered happening - I don't have a scientific background to respond whether this did or did not happen.
Fine tune nature of the earth - Here they argue that the laws are so fine tuned if one law was out or kilter then the whole system would collapse.
Density of matter - no knowledge.

Responses by Athiests
Compares belief in God to belief in a Flying Cookie Monster and theist are mocked as being delusional
Research has been done No such thing as fate providence karma or answered prayers - C S Lewis prayed for his mother to cured of cancer. Lewis had prayed for his wife with cancer. Radiation treatment allowed a few more years. Was it the prayer or the treatment

Multiverse - infinite universes with various physical constants
- Cannot observe them - not scientific
Neither theory contradicts God

Testimony

Why I Believe
Empirical belief relationship
"ask and it will be given you"
Book of Mormon tangible and verifiable - ask God if true - having faith
Study scriptures receiving peaceful loving feelings
Ok Dan Shades did it for you. I'll be not making any comments on the Petersen Obsession Board. If someone here with more science background might perhaps watch the video and make a response that makes sense.

[Gadianton]

I made it to 2:11 and then stopped. She seems nice; she isn't gripped with the fury of Mopologetics. I'm sure she's smarter than I am. However, she's Mormon, and this is a huge liability. She just doesn't know enough about religion to defend it generally because the church she goes to barely qualifies.

Her first point is the "paradox of atheism". I heard this basic point many times as a member, from the Ensign to science teachers at the Y. Mormons believe God, independent of how powerful he is, is a six-foot man. One would need to search every inch of the universe to prove he doesn't exist, but if he does exist, he can be confirmed -- especially if he wants to show up. She apparently hasn't heard of theism. The most important argument against God from atheists traditionally has been the problem of evil. All the important arguments over God, PoE*, cosmological argument, ontological argument etc., are a priori arguments. Mormons, you know, just don't know what "God" means and aren't curious enough to look it up.

But, even if God is like a Dodo bird, there's no advantage to believing a Dodo bird exists vs. extinct just because if exists, it could be verified. You can say the same about pink dragons. You could turn it around and say what she's really arguing is that "God" is unfalsifiable. Shows you how much she learned about science at MIT.

I'll give her this. Since her topic is New Atheism, I'd say that she's a better fit for debating these folks than theologians, because New Atheists also don't know what theism is either. They can get right to common territory of proving everything by experiments and it will be interesting what she comes up with.

*also in the evidential variety.

[drumdude]

"You have to search the realm of the spirit to prove there is no God"

I had to stop there. It's as nonsensical as if she had said "You have to search Hogwarts for God." OK, Lady. This is really the quality scholarship Interpreter stands upon, huh?

[Dr. Shades]

Hauslern, your list is out of context and therefore makes little sense. Please explain how each item applies to the New Atheism and/or the Latter-day Saints.

[I Have Questions]

"You have to search the realm of the spirit to prove there is no God"

I had to stop there. It's as nonsensical as if she had said "You have to search Hogwarts for God." OK, Lady. This is really the quality scholarship Interpreter stands upon, huh?

It is nonsensical. You have to search the spirit to prove there is no God? The assumption is that “the spirit” as an authority is an agreed upon methodology for determining the factuality of something’s existence. It’s loaded right from the off. It’s akin to saying that you can only prove there is no God by praying to Jesus. I mean, come on, this is just silly.

[Analytics]

The biggest problem with this presentation is that she is ignorant of where science is now. For example, around 16:30 she quotes Steven Pinker, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Pinker correctly said there is no such thing as fate, Karma, providence, or answered prayers. She then accuses him of stating something for which there is no evidence, “as far as she can tell.”

The truth is that Pinker was accurately describing what science has proven. If you start with particle physics and work your way up, what he said is proven to be true. Read Sean Carroll. If you start at human thoughts and behavior and work your way down through an incredible amount of research in cognitive science, you arrive at exactly the same place. Read Michael Gazzaniga.

She said she wanted to ask Pinker how he knows what he knows, but she didn’t ask. The truth is she doesn’t know very much about what science has discovered in the 20th century.

She looks at the parallels between the scientific method and Mormonism’s “tests” for gaining a testimony, and concludes they are the same thing and are equally valid. But if you look closer, they are the opposite—the scientific method is designed to cut through cognitive biases and learn what’s true. Mormonism’s tests of the spirit are designed to exploit cognitive biases to develop emotional belief in what you are trying to believe.

[I Have Questions]

She looks at the parallels between the scientific method and Mormonism’s “tests” for gaining a testimony, and concludes they are the same thing and are equally valid. But if you look closer, they are the opposite—the scientific method is designed to cut through cognitive biases and learn what’s true. Mormonism’s tests of the spirit are designed to exploit cognitive biases to develop emotional belief in what you are trying to believe.

Excellently articulated.

[Rivendale]

The biggest problem with this presentation is that she is ignorant of where science is now. For example, around 16:30 she quotes Steven Pinker, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Pinker correctly said there is no such thing as fate, Karma, providence, or answered prayers. She then accuses him of stating something for which there is no evidence, “as far as she can tell.”

The truth is that Pinker was accurately describing what science has proven. If you start with particle physics and work your way up, what he said is proven to be true. Read Sean Carroll. If you start at human thoughts and behavior and work your way down through an incredible amount of research in cognitive science, you arrive at exactly the same place. Read Michael Gazzaniga.

She said she wanted to ask Pinker how he knows what he knows, but she didn’t ask. The truth is she doesn’t know very much about what science has discovered in the 20th century.

She looks at the parallels between the scientific method and Mormonism’s “tests” for gaining a testimony, and concludes they are the same thing and are equally valid. But if you look closer, they are the opposite—the scientific method is designed to cut through cognitive biases and learn what’s true. Mormonism’s tests of the spirit are designed to exploit cognitive biases to develop emotional belief in what you are trying to believe.

I see apologist use the idea that science is not the only way of obtaining knowledge often. As you said testimony is used frequently. Oral tradition coupled with experience is also used. If a person is taught how to cook bread and passes that experience to their offspring there is very little scientific method involved in the transfer of information. The witnesses claiming they seen the gold plates became a widespread use of oral tradition in Mormonism. Dan Peterson laments on this when you hear him claim that the question can't be answered by a herpetologist. The same technique is used to argue that DNA had to have a designer claiming new information can't be created without a mind. This leads to the Texas sharpshooter situation (or the Kerry Muhlestein effect) where people use motivated reasoning to validate their belief system, especially religious views. I think Pinker is right.

[huckelberry]

The biggest problem with this presentation is that she is ignorant of where science is now. For example, around 16:30 she quotes Steven Pinker, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Pinker correctly said there is no such thing as fate, Karma, providence, or answered prayers. She then accuses him of stating something for which there is no evidence, “as far as she can tell.”

The truth is that Pinker was accurately describing what science has proven. If you start with particle physics and work your way up, what he said is proven to be true. Read Sean Carroll. If you start at human thoughts and behavior and work your way down through an incredible amount of research in cognitive science, you arrive at exactly the same place. Read Michael Gazzaniga.

She said she wanted to ask Pinker how he knows what he knows, but she didn’t ask. The truth is she doesn’t know very much about what science has discovered in the 20th century.

Analytics, you are the first person I have heard claim that particle physics shows there is no fate, Karma, or providence. Perhaps you could mention what line of logic is being considered. I am aware of a study where some ill people were divided between those prayed for and those not and found no statistical difference in their recovery. I guess God is happy to cure some people not prayed for. Why not? Or God often does not make special cures. Or God does not like being put to the test so did not play along. Or there is no God related to prayers. These each would be logically possible.

[Analytics]

The biggest problem with this presentation is that she is ignorant of where science is now. For example, around 16:30 she quotes Steven Pinker, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Pinker correctly said there is no such thing as fate, Karma, providence, or answered prayers. She then accuses him of stating something for which there is no evidence, “as far as she can tell.”

The truth is that Pinker was accurately describing what science has proven. If you start with particle physics and work your way up, what he said is proven to be true. Read Sean Carroll. If you start at human thoughts and behavior and work your way down through an incredible amount of research in cognitive science, you arrive at exactly the same place. Read Michael Gazzaniga.

She said she wanted to ask Pinker how he knows what he knows, but she didn’t ask. The truth is she doesn’t know very much about what science has discovered in the 20th century.

Analytics, you are the first person I have heard claim that particle physics shows there is no fate, Karma, or providence. Perhaps you could mention what line of logic is being considered. I am aware of a study where some ill people were divided between those prayed for and those not and found no statistical difference in their recovery. I guess God is happy to cure some people not prayed for. Why not? Or God often does not make special cures. Or God does not like being put to the test so did not play along. Or there is no God related to prayers. These each would be logically possible.

Pinker's position here was best articulated by Sean Carroll in his book The Big Picture. You have to read several chapters in that book regarding quantum field theory, effective field theory, and the core theory to fully understand the implications. Basically, the point is that quantum field theory is spectacularly successful at explaining reality within a well-defined domain of applicability. According to that theory, if there were some mysterious force that could impact our lives, even subtly, we know exactly how to detect such forces through something called "crossing symmetry." Using particle accelerators, scientists have done all of the possible experiments that could reveal such unknown forces. The results of those experiments are unambiguous: There is nothing there.

These implications of effective field theory is what Pinker was referring to. If you want to understand it, you should read Sean Carroll's book.