so it will be at least read.

[_MCB]

It puts me in mind of the white supremacist, who themselves tend not to be at the top of everyone's list of examples of human supremacy.

In that statement, is he including ETB, JFS, and BY?

[_Inconceivable]

I would be thoroughly amused to see what these so called scholars will actually testify of by way of questioneer of specific tenants, claims and doctrines of the church.

I think we would all quickly discover that these clowns have little to no standard doctrinal testimony at all.

[_harmony]

Tarski, if you want something read and responded to intelligently (yes, even our TBM's are intelligent), post it here.

MAD folk read this board constantly, so you'd still be hitting your target audience and if you post it here, they might actually read it more thoroughly, since they come this place constantly for ammunition.

[_honorentheos]

Tarski - Thank you, that was a great, refreshing post to read and a reminder of better days at MAD.

Euthyphro -

Anyway you're especially plugged in to that kind of book and I wonder if you have anything to recommend.

You may be interested in reading, "How We Decide", by Jonah Lehrer.

I'd also recommend, "The Hidden Brain", by Shankar Verdantam. Both books are written for a general audience, but can help reveal how much control we have over our subconscious.

I'd also recommend these books to anyone who has reached a stage in dealing with their LDS upbringing where they have resolved with their intellectual mind that "all is not well in Zion", but still have questions about the spiritual witness that is so much a part of being LDS.

[_Darth J]

Tarski----

Besides an anthropomorphic type of God, I would be interested in knowing whether you believe that any kind of God exists at all.

I'm talking about the way I understand that Einstein, for example, believed in "God."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

Note: this website is about science and God. I'm not trying to get into a whole thing about the scope of that website, just whether there is some sort of impersonal power/intelligence behind the universe that could conceivably put under the rubric of "God." (Okay, maybe that is the scope of that website, but I don't want to start a whole long debate about it----I'm just interested in knowing Tarski's thoughts.)

[_Euthyphro]

Thanks for the book links, guys.

[_Tarski]

Tarski----

Besides an anthropomorphic type of God, I would be interested in knowing whether you believe that any kind of God exists at all.

I'm talking about the way I understand that Einstein, for example, believed in "God."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

Note: this website is about science and God. I'm not trying to get into a whole thing about the scope of that website, just whether there is some sort of impersonal power/intelligence behind the universe that could conceivably put under the rubric of "God." (Okay, maybe that is the scope of that website, but I don't want to start a whole long debate about it----I'm just interested in knowing Tarski's thoughts.)

I only toy around with various notions of God - most of which really stretch the word beyond any of the usual conotations. Is such a God really "god". Einstein's god is like that. Looking over everything he said about God and how he usued the word and also other things he has said--it becomes questionable whether one shouldn't just think of Einstein as an atheist. Many think so.

If I believe in a platonic reality (perhaps with a sort of core structure centering around some concept like "the good") then is that worthy of being called God?

I'm not saying i do take that approach. My platonic inclinations are rather mild and center on mathematical truths. Even then I am aware of problems with this way of thinking.


What about reality itself? Waht if I feel a sense of awe or a sense of grandure? Should I start using the word God. Well, maybe if I am feeling poetic.
But I can say that I am not totally sure. There is that vast perspective that we don't enjoy but sometimes seems to be there. Is there a "God" after all? I don't know but I see no evidence or convincing arguments for any God concrete enough to argue about.

[_asbestosman]

Sometimes it's easy to miss the point. I think I did initially.

I also find many of the arguments for God problematic, but I'm not a scientist nor a philosopher (I'm an engineer). Even so, I still believe in God and I don't see it as a watered-down version. I guess I agree with Tarski as far as his point about experts generally not buying the arguments about design. However, I also think there could be something I miss in those arguments since I myself am not a true expert on information, complexity, probability, or design even if I understand much of the math behind it.

[_madeleine]

Perhaps they're responding to the point/question you SHOULD have made, rather than the one you actually made. They WANTED your point to be: scientists cannot be Mormons.

My favorite statistic about atheism is that the top-tier scientists are even more likely to be atheists than the average pool of scientists. The group that is the most atheistic is, not surprisingly, National Academy of Science biologists, which, in the 1998 survey, were 95% atheist.

Doubt is highest among NAS biologist at 95%. Physicists come in a close second at 93% while mathematicians are at the low end with 86% either atheists or agnostics.

http://www.cosmoetica.com/B98-JH1.htm

http://www.discovery.org/a/10171

Perhaps it is only a result of the selection process.

[_beastie]

Perhaps it is only a result of the selection process.

You mean people who are already atheists self-select to become scientists?

I don't think that's likely, particularly given how the tendency towards atheism increases with expertise (demonstrated in the extremely high rate of atheism among the NAS group).