The worst thing about Mormonism

[_beastie]

In addition to "why" - which is, of course, beyond the scope of science, and since can never be verified can not be accurately labeled "truth" - religion normally makes claims that are directly testable by science.

[_CaliforniaKid]

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

What I meant was that science, like religion, relies upon empirical experience. But by applying control criteria like repeatability, science mitigates the problem of the mutability of experience in a way that religion does not. So science's appeals to observed phenomena tend to be more reliable than religion's.

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).

Religion frequently depends upon others' testimony of a given event. For example, we rely upon the authors of the gospels to tell us about Jesus. Or we rely upon Joseph Smith to tell us that the Book of Mormon translation is a product of revelation. Scientists, too, report their experiences and observations; some, for example, have reported promising laboratory findings on the subject of cold fusion. The difference is that in science we can repeat those experiments under controlled conditions in order to determine that they're fraudulent or mistaken. In religion we generally cannot.

But the fact that some valid knowledge can be obtained outside scientific means, justifies my claim that it is appropriately called "knowledge."

I won't disagree with you there.

-Chris

[_dartagnan]

Hey Chris

What I meant was that science, like religion, relies upon empirical experience.

Absolutely.

But by applying control criteria like repeatability, science mitigates the problem of the mutability of experience in a way that religion does not.

But I'm not convinced that mutability is a problem for personal religious belief. I can see how it would be problematic for science, but not necessarily religion. And obviously it isn't since theists remain firm in their belief that God exists, in spite of the competing belief systems among religions.

As I said to JAK, all religions basically share a belief in a divine creator of some sort. Isn't it possible that there exists some connection with the mysterious human conscience and a supernatural realm? I say supernatural only because it is something that natural science has not been able to tap into.

Theists will follow whatever religion that appeals to their needs, but they all seem to be united in the belief that a divine creator exists, and that death in this life will not be the end of their existence. They differ on all the doctrinal details about soteriology and theology, but humans have traditionally accepted the knowledge that a God exists. Peoples from every continent in every time period have expressed some belief in the divine. They can't make sense of much of this knowledge except the belief that somewhere "out there" a creator exists. I believe religion and religious dogma was a natural response to this frustration. Its possible that one might have it all right, but I'm inclined to believe none of them do. Can all of their religious details all be true at the same time? Of course not. But that in itself doesn't discount the existence of a God or a human's ability to trandscend himself mentally and receive awareness of the supernatural.

So science's appeals to observed phenomena tend to be more reliable than religion's

Yes, but reliable for what kind of knowledge? That plants need sunlight? That the earth rotates on its axis? For theists, these are interesting questions worth exploring and studying but ultimately they are of secondary importance to the questions of "why." Why am I here? etc. If you knew you could have two answers to any two questions, which questions would you ask? I believe most people would ask something along religious lines. Is there a God? Why am I here? Is there life after death? Does any religion have it right? Which one?

Obviously, if religious knowledge comes to human individuals it does so in an unknown way. Because this acquisition of knowledge is not understood, many simply dismiss it as a psychological phenomenon. But this is a lazy way to deal with it if you ask me. One can't simply dismiss the bulk of human society as deluded and then call it a day. This is what I see happening too often on forums dominated by atheists.

Science will always be there to chisel away at the rough edges of religious experience, and for the most part, theists are quite willing to let science take its course and shape their own personal religious beliefs as they occassionally contradict modern scientific discovery. A perfect example of this would be the DNA issue. Did Mormons simply say science was wrong on that point? No. Instead, they admitted Joseph Smith was wrong and have redeveloped their sense of faith in light of science. They have not redeveloped their sense of science in light of religion. This fact alone flies in the face of JAK's claim that all religion is dangerous because it substitutes scientific fact with truth asserted by religious authority.

Religion frequently depends upon others' testimony of a given event. For example, we rely upon the authors of the gospels to tell us about Jesus.Or we rely upon Joseph Smith to tell us that the Book of Mormon translation is a product of revelation.

True. But as I said, belief in God would exist without religion. It is there gnawing at our consciences with or without religious dogma or established scientific procedures.

Scientists, too, report their experiences and observations; some, for example, have reported promising laboratory findings on the subject of cold fusion. The difference is that in science we can repeat those experiments under controlled conditions in order to determine that they're fraudulent or mistaken. In religion we generally cannot.

True. But another important difference, I think, is that observations need to be recorded and verified for science to be established, whereas a belief in God will be there with or without testimonies regarding dogma.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Kevin,

But I'm not convinced that mutability is a problem for personal religious belief. I can see how it would be problematic for science, but not necessarily religion.
...
As I said to JAK, all religions basically share a belief in a divine creator of some sort. Isn't it possible that there exists some connection with the mysterious human conscience and a supernatural realm? I say supernatural only because it is something that natural science has not been able to tap into.
...
They can't make sense of much of this knowledge except the belief that somewhere "out there" a creator exists. I believe religion and religious dogma was a natural response to this frustration. Its possible that one might have it all right, but I'm inclined to believe none of them do. Can all of their religious details all be true at the same time? Of course not. But that in itself doesn't discount the existence of a God or a human's ability to trandscend himself mentally and receive awareness of the supernatural.

I agree that an ambiguous, John-Hick-style, Romantic, pluralist mysticism seems to be a fairly tenable theistic option, and that the argument-from-conscience developed by Enlightenment/Romantic natural theologians is one of the better arguments for God's existence. (Though that's not to say that there aren't apt rejoinders available to those who less theistically inclined.) But this doesn't really help us answer the "why" question.

-Chris

[_beastie]

But I'm not convinced that mutability is a problem for personal religious belief. I can see how it would be problematic for science, but not necessarily religion. And obviously it isn't since theists remain firm in their belief that God exists, in spite of the competing belief systems among religions.

It's not a problem as long as the religion does not make claims about a supposed accurate description of an external reality that exists regardless of belief.

If religions are making claims about the nature of an externally independent reality - and the majority do - then the mutability is a problem in terms of how reliable those claims are. You seem to be talking about whether or not it's a problem in terms of religion's success and survival. Of course mutability - or any other reliability factor - isn't a problem for religion in terms of its success and survival, because people don't apply the same standard to religious beliefs as they do to secular claims.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

Ahhh, there you go again, misusing the concept of strawman. You've demonstrated several times in this thread that you think someone can know something before the evidence is in, and now you want to backtrack?

This is what people are referring to when they tell you you're intellectually dishonest. Course, those words might be too big for you to understand, so I'll dumb it down for you so you get it: you're full of sh*t. And you're a complete and utter embarrassment to yourself. It's actually pretty funny.

If I can't keep up? Dude, I'd have to drop about 70 IQ points to keep up with your faulty logic. You can't remember the context of a conversation from one post to the next.

You're a complete joke, but I do enjoy laughing at you, so keep it up. Let's see what kind of idiotic assertion you can come up with next.

*pops popcorn in preparation for darte's next comedy of errors*

[_CaliforniaKid]

But I'm not convinced that mutability is a problem for personal religious belief. I can see how it would be problematic for science, but not necessarily religion. And obviously it isn't since theists remain firm in their belief that God exists, in spite of the competing belief systems among religions.

It's not a problem as long as the religion does not make claims about a supposed accurate description of an external reality that exists regardless of belief.

If religions are making claims about the nature of an externally independent reality - and the majority do - then the mutability is a problem in terms of how reliable those claims are. You seem to be talking about whether or not it's a problem in terms of religion's success and survival. Of course mutability - or any other reliability factor - isn't a problem for religion in terms of its success and survival, because people don't apply the same standard to religious beliefs as they do to secular claims.

By the way, my latest blog post is a reflection on a book by Euan Cameron called Interpreting Christian History that deals with this problem of the mutability of experience. It is the best treatment of the subject from an explicitly Christian perspective that I've encountered. The other writer I'd recommend who takes the mutability of experience seriously and deals with it well is John Hick, whom I mentioned in my last post.

[_dartagnan]

Ahhh, there you go again, misusing the concept of strawman.

A straw man, for the people who don't know, is an attempt to demolish an argument your opponent never made, while pretending he or she did. This is precisely what you are doing right now. You cannot document where I ever said this and you want to call me intellectually dishonest?

Your inability to keep up or comprehend is hardly our problem. I made it perfectly clear that theists base their beliefs on religious experiences. No matter how much you howl at the moon, these count as evidences for each individual. I've already stated several times that they cannot be tested using the scientific model because the model is limited in dealing only with the present? This doesn't change the fact that a religious person bases his or her beliefs on evidence - a perception from conscience - that science cannot prove is merely a natural phenomenon.

You've demonstrated several times in this thread that you think someone can know something before the evidence is in, and now you want to backtrack?

This is why you're not worth talking to. Not only are you a complete nimrod when it comes to the English vocabulary - making irrelevant distinctions between terms as if they help your case - you can't substantiate anything you're trying to attribute to me. I never said "knowledge comes before evidence." In fact, I have made it clear that religious truth comes to humans in an unknown way; in a manner that science cannot prove or disprove. For the individual receiving the knowledge, the evidence is clearly there. For every other atheistic knuckledragger demanding "proof" that someone received a legitimate religious experience, there is nothing science can do to help him out since science has not caught up yet. Science tells us barely anything about the human conscience. This is a fact that most rambling atheists don't even realize.

Again, if you can't keep up, stop putting on this silly show pretending you are. You're all bark and no bite. You've backed off of every point where you thought you nailed me, and now you're just pissed off again and are left with nothing but name-calling.

What a shocker.

[Alf'Omega]

Ahhh, there you go again, misusing the concept of strawman.

A straw man, for the people who don't know, is an attempt to demolish an argument your opponent never made, while pretending he or she did. This is precisely what you are doing right now. You cannot document where I ever said this and you want to call me ntellectually dishonest?

Your inability to keep up or comprehend is hardly our problem. I made it perfectly clear that theists base their beliefs on religious experiences. No matter how much you howl at the moon, these count as evidences for each individual. I've already stated several times that they cannot be tested using the scientific model because the model is limited in dealing only with the present? This doesn't change the fact that a religious person bases his or her beliefs on evidence - a perception from conscience - that science cannot prove is merely a natural phenomenon.

You've demonstrated several times in this thread that you think someone can know something before the evidence is in, and now you want to backtrack?

This is why you're not worth talking to. Not only are you a complete nimrod when it comes to the English vocabulary - making irrelevant distinctions between terms as if they help your case - you can't substantiate anything you're trying to attribute to me. I never said "knowledge comes before evidence." In fact, I have made it clear that religious truth comes to humans in an unknown way; in a manner that science cannot prove or disprove. For the individual receiving the knowledge, the evidence is clearly there. For every other atheistic knuckledragger demanding "proof" that someone received a legitimate religious experience, there is nothing science can do to help him out since science has not caught up yet. Science tells us barely anything about the human conscience. This is a fact that most rambling atheists don't even realize.

Again, if you can't keep up, stop putting on this silly show pretending you are. You're all bark and no bite. You've backed off of every point where you thought you nailed me, and now you're just pissed off again and are left with nothing but name-calling.

What a shocker.

LMAO.... oh man, you must love the taste of your feet.

Were you just talking to yourself? It sounds like you're talking to yourself. That would make sense since nobody else wants to listen to your idiotic ramblings, and the fact that just about everything you said applies to you, not me. No wonder you're so pissed off. People tend to really get annoyed at others when they think they're observing behaviors they don't like in themselves. This was a fabulous example.

You've never addressed an argument I've made in a cogent way. In fact, you don't even recognize them. You actually think I haven't made one, which is yet another demonstration of your vast ignorance. But then, you're an idiot. (I say that because it's the only "argument" you ever really resort to, and perhaps you'll understand it... although I doubt it). I tried to avoid calling you names (something you can't claim, of course) and now that I finally did, you want to use that against me? LOL... wow.

You aren't even bark or bite. You're just another vacuous dipstick on the net.

Still, it's fun to keep laughing at you, so I'll anticipate your next helping of BS enthusiastically. In the mean time, you'd do well to go learn English. Oh, and some anger management courses might help you out too.

Folks, it looks like you can take the boy out of idiotic apologetics, but you can't take idiotic apologetics out of the boy.

[_Yoda]

OMG! You two just seriously made me laugh out loud! I'm glad my students are at lunch.

I have great fodder for a new signature. I hope I can fit it all.

Thanks for the chuckle!

LOL