The worst thing about Mormonism

[_Chap]

Let us assume we are in a period of history when there is no scientific reason to think tobacco is dangerous to health. Suppose that, in that hypothetical time, I had tossed a coin, saying "heads tobacco is dangerous, tails tobacco is not dangerous", and it had come down heads.
Would you then say that tossing a coin had given me "knowledge" about tobacco?

I understand what you're trying to do, which is to blow off evidence in favor of religious knowledge as coincidence or dumb luck. The problem is that nobody was tossing coins to answer such questions back then, so the truth had to have come from somewhere.

No. The point of my question, which you do not answer, is to make our readers reflect a little on what counts as 'knowledge'. Do I have 'knowledge' simply because I make a statement that is true, as indeed I have a 50% chance of doing if I submit the health risks of tobacco to the test of the tossed coin?

I think most people would feel uncomfortable with saying yes to that. And that points to the fact that in normal usage, educated speakers of English only use words like 'know' or 'knowledge' when the person who makes a correct statement is thought to do so because he has a valid reason for making the correct statement, and has not simply hit on the right answer by chance.

Of course we can then go on to argue whether religious revelation can constitute a valid reason for making a true statement or not. Most of our readers will agree with me (you too?) that scientific investigation often seems to provide valid reasons for making correct statements. Many, me included, do not see how anyone on this board has yet given persuasive reasons to conclude that religious revelation is capable of giving us valid reasons for making true statements.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not bashing philosophy. I'm just saying it's not a reliable way to arrive at the truth, in and of itself.

The truth regarding what?

Anything... except maybe the nature of certain philosophical concepts.

[_Coggins7]

Care to be more specific?

[_Some Schmo]

Care to be more specific?

About what?

[_silentkid]

This is the problem I see with the atheistic criticism. It tries to test religion using science, and when it can't, it rejects it on that basis alone. But you cannot do this any more than you can test philosophy using science.

Authors like Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) and E.O. Wilson (Consilience) are doing a good job, IMHO, of addressing this issue. Can science be used to understand religion as a natural phenomenon? I believe so, especially with advances in the fields of neurology, genetics, and molecular biology. There is no definitive scientific answer at this point (maybe there will never be) but at least there are scientists who are willing to pursue it.

[_dartagnan]

Hey chap,

No. The point of my question, which you do not answer, is to make our readers reflect a little on what counts as 'knowledge'. Do I have 'knowledge' simply because I make a statement that is true, as indeed I have a 50% chance of doing if I submit the health risks of tobacco to the test of the tossed coin?

No, I think that would be best described as guessing, which is clearly how some critics would prefer to describe religious belief. But knowledge is the perception of truth. If religionists perceive something to be true outside the realm of natural science, it is knowledge to them, and this knowledge is independent of any outside scientific corroboration or consensus.

I think most people would feel uncomfortable with saying yes to that. And that points to the fact that in normal usage, educated speakers of English only use words like 'know' or 'knowledge' when the person who makes a correct statement is thought to do so because he has a valid reason for making the correct statement, and has not simply hit on the right answer by chance.

Yes, and for religionists, they do have valid reasons for claiming knowledge; their experiences. Those experiences won't stand up to the scientific method because they cannot be tested, but then, they were never intended for that. Science and religion are two different things, but not necessarily opposites.

Most of our readers will agree with me (you too?) that scientific investigation often seems to provide valid reasons for making correct statements.

Absolutely.

Many, me included, do not see how anyone on this board has yet given persuasive reasons to conclude that religious revelation is capable of giving us valid reasons for making true statements.

No, I agree, and I think it is beside the point; at least my point.

[_Some Schmo]

Hmmm… so according to darte, it’s knowledge before evidence, is it? Let’s check out a real world example and see if it holds water.

My wife came into the room while I was reading the forum, saw darte’s avatar and asked, “Who’s that? He looks like an a**hole.”

Now, is this considered knowledge because she happens to be right, based on all the evidence we have here in this forum? Does she "know" darte’s an ass, or is it just an idea?

I suppose, according to darte, she does "know" he’s an ass. Personally, I’d advise her to give someone the benefit of the doubt given the limited amount of evidence she’s been exposed to (darte’s picture), but in darte’s case, perhaps we should just apply his own standard of criteria needed to assess the truth, and say that my wife’s knowledge of him is perfect.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kevin,

You cannot prove that "knowledge" is not gained from religion, whereas it has been proven that knowledge can be gained by religion. Just one example was the fact that Mormons knew smoking was dangeorus long before science revealed it as such.

Sure, it was religious "belief" that said it, but it also turned out to be a fact that was unknown through science or philosophy.

Yes, and for religionists, they do have valid reasons for claiming knowledge; their experiences. Those experiences won't stand up to the scientific method because they cannot be tested, but then, they were never intended for that. Science and religion are two different things, but not necessarily opposites.

My argument is not that one cannot know things via religion; rather, my argument is that religion is one of the least reliable ways of knowing. Even if religious knowing is limited to one's own empirical religious experience or to others' testimony of their empirical religious experience (which it usually, frankly, is not), there are demonstrably cases in which supposed empirical experience can be misleading. Optical illusions, altered states of consciousness, dreams, "magic" tricks, brainwashing, false memory syndrome, hypnotism, and a variety of other phenomena call into question the immutability/reliability of experience. Science tries to mitigate this problem by means of careful controls and a criterion of repeatability. Without this criterion, we'd all believe in cold fusion.

If "knowing" is defined as an awareness of or belief in things that are true, then Schmoe is right that one could know things by a coin flip, by superstition, by misinterpretation of texts, or by a number of other ways of knowing besides religion. The fact that some valid knowledge can be obtained from a particular way of knowing does not necessarily suggest that it can be relied upon.

Well, quite interesting. I think the evolutionary speculations are facile and quite strained, however

Those who are not inclined to trust evolutionary theory's explanation for the usefulness of the syllogism can still explain it in other ways, like by attributing it to a Designer. Regardless of what explanation we employ, we really cannot escape the use of syllogistic reasoning. It's thoroughly ingrained in the functioning of the human mind. So it seems to me that it's fairly fruitless to question it as a way of knowing. My concern was merely to suggest a basis for the validity of reason from a strictly rational perspective.

Indeed, our biological survival is irrelevant to our spiritual development. Hence, ancient faithful Christians were terrified of the pains they would suffer being thrown to the Lions, but had no fear of the death that would result, as that has no bearing on our ultimate spiritual development.

I'm talking less about the biological survival of believers than about the survival of their belief system. Christianity needs "hosts" to survive, and persecution (paradoxically enough) probably actually aided its survival in the early years of its existence by attracting young radicals. For more on this, see Roger Finke and Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. Even many who deny biological evolution will admit the usefulness of concepts like microevolution and the "marketplace of ideas" wherein various ideologies vie for survival.

That which explains everything, explains, of course, nothing.

Actually, evolution's wide-ranging explanatory power is a big part of its appeal. It is a sort of scientific holy grail. Physicists continue to search quite earnestly for a unified field theory, which will explain literally everything. God is the unified field theory for the world's religious majority. So I'm curious why you would make this statement.

-Chris

[_dartagnan]

Schmo

Hmmm… so according to darte, it’s knowledge before evidence, is it?

No. I've said nothing about "knowledge before evidence," but go ahead and have fun with your little straw man.

Now, is this considered knowledge because she happens to be right, based on all the evidence we have here in this forum? Does she "know" darte’s an ass, or is it just an idea?

Now you're talking about relative truth. If you can't keep up, at least stop trying.


Silent,

Can science be used to understand religion as a natural phenomenon? I believe so

Not using the scientific method, which is limited since it deals with the present.

with advances in the fields of neurology, genetics, and molecular biology

All of which, prove what exactly?

There is no definitive scientific answer at this point (maybe there will never be) but at least there are scientists who are willing to pursue it.

Of course they are. But let's be real about what they have established or can establish with science.

[_dartagnan]

CK

My argument is not that one cannot know things via religion

Good! I figured as much, which is why I didn't bother responding to your last post.

rather, my argument is that religion is one of the least reliable ways of knowing.

I think I can agree with that. However, the questions religion answers tend to be more important than those answered by science in general. Science deals with the "how" not the "why".

Even if religious knowing is limited to one's own empirical religious experience or to others' testimony of their empirical religious experience (which it usually, frankly, is not), there are demonstrably cases in which supposed empirical experience can be misleading. Optical illusions, altered states of consciousness, dreams, "magic" tricks, brainwashing, false memory syndrome, hypnotism, and a variety of other phenomena call into question the immutability/reliability of experience.

I agree with this as well. The human mind is an utter mystery to us. There is so much that we don't understand about how the conscience works and why. In fact there is more that we don't know, than we do know. We cannot approach religious truths with the assumption that the scientific method applies, and that it should produce consistency the same as it does with absolute truths.

Science tries to mitigate this problem by means of careful controls and a criterion of repeatability.

The scientific method cannot be applied to religion, so I don't know how you mean it tries to mitigate the problem.

Without this criterion, we'd all believe in cold fusion.

I'm not sure how something like cold fusion (which can be tested using the scientific method) can be compared to religious truths (which cannot).

The fact that some valid knowledge can be obtained from a particular way of knowing does not necessarily suggest that it can be relied upon.

But the fact that some valid knowledge can be obtained outside scientific means, justifies my claim that it is appropriately called "knowledge." Schmo and others have no basis to say it isn't really knowledge. Their gripe is with the English language, not me.