Ep 435 – The Religion of Science? – Part 1

Panel Discussion

Posted January 16th, 2018

What does it mean to be open-minded vs. closed-minded?  We experienced some kind of “open vs. closed” clash of ideologies when we challenged and deconstructed the dogmas of Mormonism, right?  So what do we do with that now?  And what about the accusations that some of us simply substituted the cultural dogmas of Mormonism for the cultural dogmas of Science?

Listen in as Randy totally keeps his cool (eh hem…) while joining Glenn, John, Lindsay, and Matt in a discussion of Rupert Sheldrake’s 2012 “Banned Ted Talk” about the 10 dogmas of a Scientific Materialist Worldview.  And don’t miss the special easter egg parody about the press conference announcing the new LDS Prophet at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg&t=611s

Glenn

John

Matt

Randy

  • What Hamer said.

    If you find yourself fighting the same war for decades or centuries, you’re stated objectives are probably mistaken. If you actually knew who or what your real enemy was (or was not) you would have won the war
    (or been soundly defeated) many years ago.

    Actually, religion grows up wherever there isn’t something else—and even where there is. It’s like the weeds in my front yard. I can take it down to bare dirt, but, in the spring and summer, it won’t be two weeks before there are weeds a foot tall—and lawn or gravel or blacktop will only slow them down, and then only for a minute. If you can’t demonstrate what IS, then “what might be” or “what could be” or just “what you can’t prove right this minute isn’t” grows in great roiling tangles. Religion itself is the greatest proof of how something can come from nothing. It doesn’t so much come from nothing as it comes because nothing, as does everything else. It turns out that it’s way harder to have rilly fer rill nothing than it is to have something. All you need to do to have something is nothing—it might not be anything good, mind you, but like weeds and bread mold and religion, it will be something. Material existence grows out of neglect, not the will of God.

    Maybe the whole problem is that Dark Matter got here first and, by natural law, we’re just going to have to wait our turn. Pop a Foster’s and throw another shrimp on the barbie; this could take a while.

    • Gabriel von Himmel

      Saint R, sapian, “unknown knowns are known unknowns that have been forgotten”
      Pop is the ongoing effort to scratch an unlocatable itch; a profound reason for the same old thing to be new — an urge that will not die. It is to wrestle a serpent whose head you will never see. In an imperfect world, kitsch will live forever; both art and life rely on business with its invisible hand to guide us through, and science will always be science. Pop is to wrestle with a serpent who’s head you will never see . . .

      thanks infants, now I feel so enlightened.

  • Gabriel von Himmel

    bolts, wild fires flash floods and the earth shaking to postulate a malevolent spirit than controls the development rights on “our turf.”

    This was not an empirical conclusion as there is no word for logic or science; there is magic and fear of the unexplained. Then we learned to rub sticks together to make heat and control the resultant flames but the mystery of existence demands explanation.

    The chieftains, shamans, soothsayer and magical intercessionists, for tribal solidarity, myths and legends explain the dangers and travails of the fragile humans’ early stirrings; we didn’t even know we were earthlings.

    Thus we are now able to translate these mystical visions (through the written word) carry on stacking belief upon conjecture to substantiate our existence. And, yes the need to believe does sprout like weeds from cracked asphalt.

    • Glenn

      This may be the first time I have understood every poetic von Himmelesque word

      • Gabriel von Himmel

        a story for Glenn,
        Frolic in Paradise

        Once upon a time there was a big jug of cider sitting in a cool place. In this jug were little yeasties. The yeastie needed to eat. Being hungry for food and procreation, the little yeasties slurped cider sugars and they shat alcohol and they procreated and procreated, as it is, exponentially. These little critters operated as if there were limitless sugars and space to spread their way of life; it was just like paradise. So, by and by, they ate and shat and shat and ate and spread throughout the tasty cider soup until the sugar was gone and they began to drown in their own shit; the alcohol excrement was, of course, poison to the little critters. All the little yeasties died and their little world was turned to shit.

        Had the little yeasties engaged in experimentation and research, intervening variables might have been implemented to change their paradigm.

        If the little yeasties were equipped with genetic engineering, they might have programmed their diet to eat alcohol and shit sugar, reversing the process that was their demise. Had the organism gotten a handle on its ability to procreate, the cider environment could have supported the frolic and feasting of the yeasty for some length of time. This time would have been valuable to the survival of the little critter; there would have been time for research into exploration beyond the cider jug, exploit to other cider jugs and spread the Good News to other parts of the realm. It’s through this fairy tale that we at Scari Research Institute have postulated a template for the human condition.

        (If this were a anthropocentric story and we being the good guys, this would be where we’d come in to save the day, but it’s a story about yeasties)

        Conclusion: Had the yeastie been inbued with cognition and science beyond natural selection they could have taken counter measures that would secure their fate, perserve the realm and continue their frolic.

        parson Carson Gallant Charoot

        • The gods who put the cider in the jug, of course, enjoyed the product of the yeasties’s blithering idiocy immensely. If there is an anthropomorphic analogy that will withstand extension, maybe we here on Earth are just here to make a concoction in which our own gods will delight once we have finished drowning in our own shit. In which case we should simply get on with it.

  • Delaney Darco

    I enjoyed the conversation. Lindsay, I really appreciated your calm and rational approach, calling out error in both camps (Science vs. Belief I guess)). I usually pull a “Randy” when I listen to something like this guy’s talk, which is why I appreciate other voices to help me simmer back down. Can’t wait to listen to part two.

    The frustrating thing with listening to people poo-poo on science is they usually do so without fully understanding the science. There are so many misconceptions about any one topic, say evolution, genetic engineering, or astrophysics. People who haven’t taken the time to educate themselves don’t even know what they don’t know. That can be frustrating for us science-minded folk. Like, go take a class or read a few books and you’ll see why scientist “believe” what they do.

    On the flip side, we “arm chair scientists” can get pretty dogmatic in our terminology and token phrases, and it starts sounds like a different flavor of religion because they aren’t used to educate, they are used for a “ZING!”. Is it a two-way conversation, or are you just trying to sound super smart? Can we have a conversation without pointing out all the logical fallacies? It just makes you sound like an ass-hole. Even if you are right. I guess it depends on who you are talking to. Context is everything.

    Both sides talk disingenuously about the other side, and it feels good to get a laugh with cheap shots. Like that zinger from Russell M. Nelson making fun of the Big Bang. Oh man, I was a member when I heard that and I still wanted to barf.

    I Don’t know what the answer is, but I like these conversations. I want to be right, but I want to be everyone’s friend too….hey, just like the Mormons! Can we have it both ways?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr2nY4MTUpA
    (about minute 7:00)