[wordsleuth23]

I just read Cromar’s article, and I don’t even know what to say–I’m honestly stunned. That was 4 pages of nonsense, hateful nonsense. After my mind has recovered from the beating it just took, I’ll write a longer post, but I need to calm down so I don’t say anything over the top or anything that sounds too angry.

[wordsleuth23]

swimordie wrote:

So, can creativity flourish in an orthodox paradigm? Are there examples? Obviously, this is not limited to just the mormon orthodox experience.

I think too much structure/orthodoxy can stifle creativity, but I don’t think the Mormon paradigm does that. It takes some creativity to accept ideas like gold plates, angels, visions, etc. so if anything, a religious/mormon culture might inspire creativity.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

1. Can you explain what positivism means to you?

Positivism is empiricism, i.e, evidence you can test.

Tom Haws wrote:

Atwater quote:The skeptics sound good and their reasoning seems solid, until you step back and take another look at what they’re saying. I’m not certain what references they are using to base their ideas on, but I do know that none of them have ever done substantial research with actual near-death experiencers, nor the kind of clinical work now published in many peer-reviewed journals. The old days of small studies and provocative claims are now over. Near-death research today stands firmly on the results of four large clinical prospective studies done in three countries, on findings coming in from research in non-industrialized countries, and on a wealth of studies that have withstood over three decades of scrutiny.

I can explain in more detail the aspects of the NDE Atwater is referring to.

What are Atwater’s academic credentials? For her to criticize the studies done by “skeptics” is interesting, considering the studies are actually quite numerous, the people doing the studies have ACTUAL Ph.D.’s, and their work appears in peer reviewed journals. Susan Blackmore’s academic credentials are enormously more impressive than Atwaters, so her criticism of Blackwater also strikes me as misplaced. Anyway, I’ll stay out of this discussion because I’ve said what I think about NDE’s and I don’t want to be the antagonist of the thread.

[wordsleuth23]

jmb275 wrote:

Well, while I understand your point, I think it’s quite inaccurate to say that there is no difference. I do think that as neuroscience, and psychologists learn more we will discover mysteries and further increase understanding. But psychologists will be the first to admit that their science is rather unique. It is not nearly so well-defined, easy to test, or conclusive due to the uniqueness of each one of us. Here are some very important differences:

1. Rain is a purely physical phenomenon (purely tangible even at the atomic level), consciousness is exactly the opposite as it is not tangible, measurable, or even well understood at this point.

2. Besides 1, rain is rain is rain (simplified here a bit I know). NDEs, consciousness, and spirituality varies wildly with individuals. There are common threads as Tom has pointed out, and those are interesting, but it makes it very hard to test in a scientific manner.

You’re right, it is inaccurate to say that the science of understanding rain is no different that the science of the brain, but my point still stands. I’m sure there are still some indigenous tribes in the world that still believe in some sort of rain god, and that is because they don’t “know” why it really rains. I guess I can’t guarantee there isn’t a rain god, but I’m going to comfortably accept the scientific answer.

That is my point about NDE’s. While NDE’s and neuroscience are more complex than rain, we have scientifically gotten far enough with NDE’s to identify what is happening in the brain when they occur, and to even create them on command. If we’ve gotten to the point with something that we can create them on command–a special brain helmet is one way–then its safe to say we’ve “debunked” the supernatural explanation. Like rain, understanding NDE’s from a scientific standpoint doesn’t mean we have proven there is no God, or that heaven doesn’t exist, but I’m more comfortable with the sound, proven understanding science has provided on the issue. Jmb, you should read some of the studies that have been done–for references, go to Michael Shermer’s website.

I have no problem with people finding comfort in these experiences, I just don’t believe them. I’m with you, as long as people’s belief in this phenomenon don’t lead them to mistreat others, or push their belief on others, then its no big deal. It is bothersome when people say it’s “proof” that agnostics/atheists/non-theists are wrong, because the only sort of proof related to the matter lies with science, not the other way around.

jmb275 wrote:

You know I lean this way too, but I believe we have to be careful. If science can explain it, it doesn’t make it right. It might be better in some respects because it is more logical, or more in line with objective reality, but if the explanation Tom provides helps people does that not count for something? Positivism has its place, but should be countered IMHO with a healthy dose of the metaphysical.

I disagree with your statement “if science can explain it, it doesn’t make it right”. I guess defining terms here would be helpful–I would define “right” as the most correct explanation we can have/gain at any given moment. In that respect, when science can accurately describe a phenomenon, science is “right” in one sense. That doesn’t mean Tom’s explanation is useless or unhelpful, but positivism gets things done–metaphysical thoughts/philosophies can’t really be “right” by their very nature–they can be interesting, but not right, unless they can be proven by science. I’m obviously looking at this through the biased lenses of a positivist, but that is my take.

[wordsleuth23]

To me, NDE’s are like a host of other mysterious phenomena that we couldn’t explain for a long time–in the absence of a good scientific explanation, we interpreted/answered the experience in religious terms–i.e. while dying, I saw my body, I talked to God, I heard the EMT’s having a conversation about me, God gave me a choice of living or dying, etc. therefore, I have “proof” that God is real, I have a spirit, and there is life after death. That seems like a reasonable conclusion without a better, more sound, explanation. Science has very good answers/explanations for NDE’s now; we used to think the Rain Gods were responsible for rain, now we trust the scientific explanation, to me, NDE’s are no different.

I think Rix mentioned this earlier, but psychedelic drugs induce all sorts of “religious” experiences. People talk to God, see angels, fly, etc.–before science could explain why this happens, lots of people believed they were really experiencing these things. Whether its drugs, a dying brain, or anything else, if science can explain it, then that is the better answer to me.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

Would a thread on “The Near Death Experience” be too polarized? There is much we could explore if it can be done in the wonderful way customary of this community/

I think that sounds like a great thread.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

A question you and I might both ask ourselves is this: “Does my perspective make it more likely or less likely I would respect the work of those with the ‘opposite’ perspective?”

To Tom: “How closely and openly are you willing to examine the stories of Dr. Susan Blackmore et al?”

To Wordsleuth: “How closely and openly are you willing to examine the stories of __________?

Thank you for making me think and evaluate my positions. I try and keep this in mind as I examine stories in the future, especially those that I might feel predisposed to disagree with.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

Here are my core conclusions:

1. It’s clear that for the vast majority of near death experiencers (estimated by Gallup to include 5% of the US population), the subjective reality of the afterlife world puts the physical world to a mere illusion. Consider that as data. Knead it and fry it.

2. As in the rest of life, what matters is not “proof”, but ascertaining the “most likely” explanation. What explanation accounts best for wide unanimity regarding highly detailed, technical, and culturally anomalous elements of this subjective afterlife? What explanation accounts for its effect on subsequent quality of life? Detailed technical discussion available on request.

However, you seem pretty comfortable with your current atheistic model. I say go with it as long as it seems best to you.

Tom

There are two ways one can view out of body/near death experiences:

1) We have spirits/souls and during temporary death, they leave the body and some people have the good fortune of remembering this in great detail.

2) That the sensations people think are proof of a spirit/life after death, are really just the effects of some sort of trauma/stimulus on the brain.

We can’t know/prove anything about the first theory, but we can believe it is “proof” of something we already believe in. With the second theory, we have a scientific explanation, which can be repeated, and gives us very detailed knowledge of what is happening to the brain when someone has a NDE. Scientists have been studying this issue for quite sometime; Michael Shermer says the following:

What is going on here? New evidence indicates that they are, in fact, a product of the brain. Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, for example, can induce all of these experiences in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of magnetic fields. I tried it and had a mild out-of-body experience.

Similarly, the September 19, 2002 issue of Nature, reported that the Swiss neuroscientist Olaf Blanke and his colleagues discovered that they could bring about out-of-body experiences (OBEs) through electrical stimulation of the right angular gyrus in the temporal lobe

Other scientists have found that ingesting large amounts of ketamine can also induce an out of body experience. Unless someone has lived a very, very isolated life, they will have heard about some sort of life after death, souls/spirits, etc. These thoughts are already in the brain, and people use this “knowledge” to help them interpret/understand what happened to them when they had an NDE.

People that share their NDE’s are retelling something that happened presumably while they were dying; that makes the likelihood of accuracy low, and exaggeration/misremeberance high. Conscious eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable; they remember seeing things that never happened, they exaggerate, they forget, so the idea that people remember an event with a high level of accuracy while dying seems slim. That doesn’t mean they can’t remember some of the experience, but their belief systems seem to fill in/add to the experience.

The best scientific data we have indicates that NDE’s are sensations caused by the brain under duress/lacking oxygen/stimulation of certain areas of the brain, not people’s spirits leaving their bodies. Ultimately, that doesn’t mean anything about the actuality of an afterlife or God, but–to me–it means NDE’s shouldn’t be used as evidence of God/heaven.

[wordsleuth23]

Old-Timer wrote:

I think having a temple in East Germany before the wall came down is a pretty good reason to allow for possibilities – even if they aren’t probabilities.

Valid point. One difference is that East Germany was a puppet of the Soviets, and the small amount of autonomy/sovereignty they had increased as Soviet power decreased throughout the 80’s. Either way, you’re right, it is possible to see missionaries and even Temples in China, even if it doesn’t seem probable.

[wordsleuth23]

This is my take on the issue–keep in mind, I’m a PS major, that leans left. Huntsman’s appointment has a few basic, obvious purposes. 1)Huntsman is/was a real contender in the Republican Party for the Presidential nomination in 2012–people become President from the Governor’s Mansion, but not from ambassadorships. 2)Huntsman has been an ambassador in Asia before, he speaks the language, and he’s politically savvy. 3)It was a way for Pres. Obama to make a bipartisan appointment, while helping himself in the process. Huntsman is moderate so it won’t infuriate liberals, and he’s conservative enough that it pleased most Republicans.

I don’t personally see this as the sort of issue that will advance missionary work in China. Utah has had a good relationship with China since Huntsman became governor, and hopefully, Huntsman will improve the US/China relationship as well, but I don’t see this as “God working in mysterious ways”. Until China changes its communist government to some form of democracy, they will always be hostile to “foreign” religions–they don’t want anything to compete with one’s love of country. I could very well be wrong, but my “prediction” is that there won’t be proselytizing Mormon missionaries in China as long as it is communist. It is true that Taiwan/Hong Kong have had missionaries for quite a while, but those territories have a level of autonomy from China, and they aren’t directly run by communists.

[wordsleuth23]

jmb275 wrote:

Tom Haws wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

I generally have very little to say about various eschatological theories. The fact is, I don’t know, and don’t really feel like I can know. Until we discover a way for people to die, bring them back, and have them retain their consciousness (without the brain, which seems quite unlikely), I don’t think we’ll have a real clear picture on it.

jmb, I realize that everybody has their own cup of tea their own way, but statements like this make me wonder if people are really up on the latest data. I read the other day a philosophical article from about 1925 that I can’t put my finger on at the moment, and if I understood correctly, the general gist was about what you said above. Essentially, “we don’t know anything, there’s no data. Very few people claim to have seen the Master of the Universe. It’s not testable. It’s not study-able.”

I am a humanist. I agree with the spiritual idea that eschatological pretzels are yucky. I agree that now is the day and the time of our salvation. But I am also a scientist. And when there is data, I believe it shouldn’t be ignored.

This is the 21st century. Things are changing. Old paradigms don’t always hold true any more. There may be more evidence than you think. At the same time, you can’t put old wine into new bottles. Looking at new evidence with old paradigms doesn’t work. The paradigms have to change. What is God? What am I? Who are you? The old theological and philosophical constants such as “omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent” may no longer work. Seek and we shall find. Ask and we shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto us.

Well, I am certainly open to the evidence. Please point me in the right direction!! I know there is data, but it seems to be in support of the idea that there is no spirit, or life after death at all. I just barely took an online psychology course from Yale in which this was discussed. The instructor was fairly clear that the consensus (at least among psychologists) seems to be that the grey lump of meat in our head is responsible for our consciousness, and that when we die it is the end. I am open to the possibility that they’re incorrect, but the evidence I have seen doesn’t lend any creedence to any of the various eschatological theories. I have read some NDEs, but these seem to be explained by other psychological phenomena. I understand they have spiritual value nonetheless, but in terms of what I consider to be reality on this subject, the answer is I don’t know.

But if you are aware of some more up to date scientific data on the subject, please enlighten me!

Having said this, I do like the ideas of reincarnation, and in some ways the whole notion of becoming a god, and spawning offspring like us, etc. is very cyclical in a reincarnation-ish way.

Jmb, your post sums up my feelings perfectly (although you speak with the advantage/wisdom of a Yale psych course).

[wordsleuth23]

Rix, thanks for the post–I like the article.

I think the article has valid points about the evolving nature of American’s and religion, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of us here fit the mold this article is referencing. By that, I mean that views shared here aren’t exactly orthodox, and lots of theories/ideas are discussed and given some level of merit.

The aspect of the article that interests me is the view taken by orthodox religious people. The article says that 37% of white evangelicals believe any religion will do; I wonder what percentage of orthodox Mormons feel that way. I think a small percentage of the Church is evolving along the lines this article proposes, but I think it’s quite small. It’s inherently difficult for people to think there are many paths to heaven when they are constantly taught otherwise.

As a missionary, my companions and I would teach investigators about our church being the one True Church; to emphasize this, we would have a little demonstration map of roads that led to other places and if those roads rerouted to “heaven” without joining up with the Mormon road, then they weren’t allowed to enter. Obviously we were highly enthusiastic teenagers that believed in the literal truth of what we were taught, so this lesson made perfect sense to us. I think a large portion of devout, active Mormons feel somewhat like this–maybe not the extreme I took it to–but somewhere in the same vicinity.

I hope that the Church continues to evolve so that it inherently focuses less on one truth, and more on the importance a belief system–any type, any creed–can have in helping people maximize their happiness/satisfaction in this life that we currently have.

[wordsleuth23]

jeriboy wrote:

Wordsleuth, sounds like I may have hit a raw nerve, sure didn’t mean to do that. The first part about helping the poor…your reply very much overstates my intent…no matter how much we ALL do, their will always be the poor…that’s what I meant…as to the gay issue, the church supported prop 8 and I supported the church…last of all ” I would be real careful with that one.”…that’s just my personal (mental/emotional) response to to your willingness to be critical of the church, but, on the real world level, by all means, go for it, I support your right to say what you want, and I hope we both support each others right to an exchange of ideas.

I guess I still don’t understand your point jeri; because there will always be poor people we shouldn’t maximize our ability to help them? My original point was the idea that the Church has the ability/capacity to do more, i.e., reduce spending on material things like Temples, and use that money for specific humanitarian causes. The reason I referenced Prop 8 is because it is an example of the Church fighting something that will always exist. There will always be gays/gay couples, and soon enough, there will be gay marriage in most of our country; yet the Church chose to fight something it will inevitably “lose”.

Helping the poor isn’t a zero-sum game–it doesn’t have to be completely eradicated for it to be worth fighting. As for my “criticism” of the Church–I’m an agnostic Mormon–meaning I’m culturally linked, but I have no belief in the Church. Not only that, but most of this website consists of things that would be considered critical by mainstream Mormons. You haven’t offended me, I respect your right to exchange ideas, and I enjoy a good friendly debate, so no hard feelings.

[wordsleuth23]

Valoel wrote:

Most recently in life, I find myself in the DAMU. I had to face the Church that was the framework of my entire life. This is where I was thinking about a comparison the other day. People leave the Church when they find out it has warts, that it isn’t perfect, and fails sometimes (or often times) at our own ideals. But do people leave the US (or their country) when they find out we’ve fought wars and killed to protect profits of big business through out our history? Do people go off and live in a cave and become self-sufficient nomads when they find out that business is really about profit/survival at all costs, much less than the ideal? George Washington didn’t chop down a cherry tree and then tell the truth as a child. Abe Lincoln really didn’t care about slaves. Kennedy was a mad womanizer … so that makes the entire USA and everyone who stands on the soil a fraud. (replace with any country and your own mythological/historical heroes).

But somehow I expected a church populated by these same wonderful, fascinating, chaotic, warty humans to really deliver perfection….

You’re statements about our government and the parallels to the Church are really interesting. I agree with you—our country/government has lots of warts, it is far from perfect, and it fails at many levels. People don’t generally renounce their citizenship and move–but lots and lots of people try and change their government. When I started to learn more about our country’s dark side, I was surprised, but not shaken anywhere near the way I was when I started learning about the Church. Why? Because our government doesn’t claim to have God guiding it in all that it does.

I’ve posted about this before, but the difficulty with religion is the way we are allowed to discuss it. We can rip the government, we can fight for change, we can elect new leaders, etc. but we can’t do those things with the Church. If one happens to be too vocal about the Church publicly, they most likely will find themselves at a disciplinary hearing. In that respect, the Church functions more like China or Iran–I know that sounds terrible, but the analogy fits. I’ve been personally told that if I share my thoughts/feelings/beliefs about the Church with people outside of my family, I can plan on being excommunicated. On the other hand, I affiliate with some pretty liberal political groups, I blog about our government and leaders in less than flattering ways, and I know that I’m not going to lose my citizenship over it.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

ws, I think it’s ideal for us (you and me) to be able to have our steadfast vision of a “kingdom without bricks and mortar” while still appreciating that bricks and mortar are meaningful in some useful way to a whole lot of people. I’m not going to claim I appreciate it as I should, but I am at least coming to the point where I can say, “The LDS religion is far from perfect. But it’s a giant step in the right direction for a lot of people.” I think that implies that for a lot of people, giving their time and money to temples is a huge step in the right direction. And I’ve got to quit begrudging that. At least, that’s how I see my growth duty.

Tom

You are right Tom, plenty of Church members and the Church itself are headed in the right direction. It’s easy to overlook that and expect more, and in one sense, that is a flaw of mine. I’m sure my comments haven’t done a good enough job of saying that I really do think the Church does lots of good with its finances. My very original point was simply the idea that saving X amount of dollars per Temple, and giving that amount to a specific life saving cause, would be very similar to fast offerings. No matter what the Church has done to this point, it has the capacity to do more–that is all I’m saying. Some of my comments may have been too harsh, and that’s my fault. I guess I hold the Church to a very high standard because it claims to be Christ’s one true church, because it does do good things, and because its in a very secure financial position. I don’t claim to be right, I’m just sharing an opinion that I believe has some merit.

[Author]

Posts