The worst thing about Mormonism

[_guy sajer]

Even agnostic or atheistic scientists become theistic based on their own experience with science. For them the universe appears to be too perfect for our existence to be happenstance.

Perhaps, but I would guess not too many of them. Rather I would guess that it goes grossly disproportionately in the other direction. For myself, I find that science answers the "big" questions far more effectively and reliably than does religion.

[_dartagnan]

Hey chap,

You write at some length in response to a short question, but it is not entirely clear to me what your answer is. However, let me for the sake of argument take it that your answer is

Yes, that's correct. Forgive me if I'm not always terse in responding.

Is there (for you) a difference between believing "that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us" and knowing "that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us", and is so what is that difference?

Sure. I don't think there is much of a difference here. The same as there wouldn't be any difference in saying "I believe the moon isn't made of cheese," and "I know the moon isn't made of cheese."

I understand belief to be less concrete in the sense that it is easier to change. For example, if someone tells me that his father was Scottish, I would probably say, "I believe you're telling the truth." I wouldn't say "I know you're telling the truth."

Would you kindly tell me one specific thing that YOU know through the religious method, and how you are sure you know it?

I know God exists. I don't know the details about God but I know God exists. I am sure of it because this knowledge came to me in the same ways other things have come to me. I'm sorry I cannot give a better explanation than that, but the fact is I don't understand it myself. But suffice it to say, I love and respect science. Since nothing in modern science has contradicted this knowledge, and some things actually point to that conclusion, I have found no reason to dismiss this knowledge as fantasy or myth.

Guy sajer,

Perhaps, but I would guess not too many of them.

You're right. But it is a fact that a significant portion do. I say significant because any number would be significant if you consider they are scientists and science is supposed to be oposite to religion. And they do so with little or no religious authority preaching to them. They follow what they consider to be reasonable induction of scientific facts. They reason their way towards theism.

As for the rest, it is already an established fact that the scientific community has become a social group like many others, and shares the same characteristics of others, even religious denominations. Consensus is treated as dogma which is to be upheld and defended no matter its merits. Those who dare to challenge are often marginalized and discredited. It is the same social phenomenon that occurs in any other social group.

[_Chap]

Hey chap,

Is there (for you) a difference between believing "that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us" and knowing "that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us", and is so what is that difference?

Sure. I don't think there is much of a difference here. The same as there wouldn't be any difference in saying "I believe the moon isn't made of cheese," and "I know the moon isn't made of cheese."

Would you kindly tell me one specific thing that YOU know through the religious method, and how you are sure you know it?

I know God exists. I don't know the details about God but I know God exists. I am sure of it because this knowledge came to me in the same ways other things have come to me. I'm sorry I cannot give a better explanation than that, but the fact is I don't understand it myself.

Thank you for your clarification.

I should say that in my opinion the tendency (sometimes it seems like a deliberate commitment) to assimilate belief to knowledge is one of the more common effects of CoCJoLDS membership on people's minds. I do not think it is an effect that is conducive to clarity of thought and argument.

Our exchange has therefore been relevant to the topic of this thread.

[_Some Schmo]

I know God exists.

ROTFLMAO

I guess we now know the worth of your "knowledge." Just as I suspected...

Wow... too funny.

[_dartagnan]

Thank you for your clarification.

I should say that in my opinion the tendency (sometimes it seems like a deliberate commitment) to assimilate belief to knowledge is one of the more common effects of CoCJoLDS membership on people's minds. I do not think it is an effect that is conducive to clarity of thought and argument.

You're welcome. I'll just add that I call my my belief knowledge, not because I have been influenced by the LDS faith, but because it is knowledge. I knew God exists before I joined the LDS faith. By definition, that is precisely what it is, so why should I hesitate to call it what it is? Because a few ignorant atheists like Schmo get wildly boisterous about it?

That's their problem in my opinion, and it is a problem they have with the English language, along with their bigotry. The tendency for atheists to claim "knowledge" only to themselves, is the the tendency without merit.

As I said before, human reasoning is the most compelling argument for God. Scientists reason their way into theism all the time. Those who keep themselves out of it, I suspect, are those who tend to rely too much on a scientific method - that has become their own orthodox "belief". Even the prominent atheist Antony Flew, has recently decided that God must exist (http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-ab ... heism.html). The once atheistic geneticist, Francis S. Collins has converted to theism, and has also written a book about how DNA is the "Language of God." It is a fascinating read, but I haven't come across too many atheists that are willing to read books arguing for the counterpoints.

Schmo

I guess we now know the worth of your "knowledge." Just as I suspected...

You're on your own here, so stop with the "we" silliness, trying to pretend you're speaking for a particular group or posters who actually agree with you.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo

I guess we now know the worth of your "knowledge." Just as I suspected...

You're on your own here, so stop with the "we" silliness, trying to pretend you're speaking for a particular group or posters who actually agree with you.

Oh, I forgot that you were the only one allowed to do that.

The "we" wasn't referring to a group of posters as much as it was referring to "people with actual brains in their heads." I'm not surprised you misunderstood yet again, sad panda.

Why don't you try dancing, little panda? That might cheer you up.

[_silentkid]

The once atheistic geneticist, Francis S. Collins has converted to theism, and has also written a book about how DNA is the "Language of God." It is a fascinating read, but I haven't come across too many atheists that are willing to read books arguing for the counterpoints.

I just added this book to my Amazon wishlist. I wonder how similar his approach is to Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God?

[_dartagnan]

The "we" wasn't referring to a group of posters as much as it was referring to "people with actual brains in their heads." I'm not surprised you misunderstood yet again, sad panda.

You implied with "we" that there was a group of people who considered my knowledge "worthless." You've done this on occassion, but the fact is nobody here is questioning my intelligence or ability to reason, except you.

You're a lone wolf acting on ignorance and bigotry, with a creepy fascination with pandas.

[_EAllusion]

As for the rest, it is already an established fact that the scientific community has become a social group like many others, and shares the same characteristics of others, even religious denominations. Consensus is treated as dogma which is to be upheld and defended no matter its merits. Those who dare to challenge are often marginalized and discredited. It is the same social phenomenon that occurs in any other social group.

One wonders how something like Kimura's neutral theory can even get off the ground.

That or, you know, design and first cause based arguments are atrocious attempts at scientific argument and easily demonstrated so, which is something scientists are generally better able to determine.

[_EAllusion]

Francis Collins converted to theism on the basis of C.S. Lewis's moral argument, which is a species of teleological argument at its heart. Do you think that is a good argument Kevin?