DiscussMormonism.com

There's a thread on the other board about the current scientific explanations for human emotions and things like NDEs, and how these render the "spiritual" explanation for them at best unnecessary. Most TBM posters responded with unadulterated rage or ridicule, but a couple of them have tried to substantively respond. Their responses should be familiar to anyone who has spoken with apologists about religion and science before.

scooby responds by claiming that it's absurd for scientists to believe that they can "find" God by "increasing the magnification on their lenses". This defense may work for more mainstream Christians, but it doesn't fly for a religion that believes that "spirit is matter, but more refined" and that a corporeal God lives in the actual cosmos. If Mormons publicized the level of refinement at which spirit existed, then their definition of spirituality would be falsifiable.

calmoriah gets into the fray by requiring science to be able to "repair" her brain as well as a mechanic can with a car before she thinks of it as falsifying her religion. Her critique loses most of its potency, though, when one considers the benefits that psychiatric medication have conferred upon the mentally ill. She also claims (along with selek) that her spiritual observations are equivalent to generally-accepted scientific observations, because they are replicable. She tries to situate Mormonism in the prevailing scientific method, but it does not seem to faze her that the vast majority of impartial observers have been unable to replicate her results.

Kevin Christensen responds by equating the original post to logical positivism, which he asserts has been debunked. This is a common tactic of upper-echelon apologists. Unfortunately for Kevin, there doesn't appear to be any reason to equate the OP with logical positivism. Kevin then brings up Kuhn's ideas of paradigms, taking the radically skeptical position that scientists can only work within their own biases and unsupported assumptions. This tactic has the convenient feature of rendering all criticism of Mormonism suspect, but has the undesirable side effect of rendering criticism of anything suspect. Kevin's defense of Mormonism against the encroachment of modern science works equally well as a defense of Scientology and Santeria, yet he still believes the defense to be useful.

What other frameworks have you seen Mormons use to defend themselves against claims that science has debunked their beliefs?

I've always loved the appeal to Kuhn, as it reduces science to just another belief system that one chooses to accept. Of course, saying that scientific paradigms are suspect is quite damning to religion, which as a paradigm is unable to shift, so it's a suspect belief that is inflexible at the same time.

However, none of this tops the "postmodern" approach of a certain board founder. Looking for evidence of truth, she tells us, is to buy into outdated Enlightenment thinking and puts us in danger of fundamentalism. Only by rejecting the idea of any sort of objective truth can we see the "truth" of Mormonism, which of course is merely a subjective "it feels good to me" sort of truth. I think Brigham Young would have had people "used up" for spouting such nonsense in his day.

You're absolutely right, Runtu. Great finds!

Interesting thread, JSM. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I think the OP overstates things, especially in regards to Mormonism being falsified by neuroscience ('cause the core beliefs of Mormonism are definitively unfalsifiable), but it had to be done in order to bring out the LDS defensiveness. One that I see a lot is this:

Deborah claims that science needs to catch up with religion in order to truly understand the nature of nature. In other words, future evidence will vindicate Mormon beliefs about spirits and eternal life. Of course this contradicts the mantra that God stuck us here in blindness so we would have to work by faith, but it is still a very common appeal from LDS who believe science is good but currently imperfect.

The Dude wrote:Interesting thread, JSM. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I think the OP overstates things, especially in regards to Mormonism being falsified by neuroscience ('cause the core beliefs of Mormonism are definitively unfalsifiable), but it had to be done in order to bring out the LDS defensiveness.

I agree that the OP's "essentially falsified" claim was wrong, but when you take that out, his main point still stands: that neuroscience explains what Mormonism purports to, thus removing any need for the latter explanation.

One that I see a lot is this:

Deborah claims that science needs to catch up with religion in order to truly understand the nature of nature. In other words, future evidence will vindicate Mormon beliefs about spirits and eternal life. Of course this contradicts the mantra that God stuck us here in blindness so we would have to work by faith, but it is still a very common appeal from LDS who believe science is good but currently imperfect.

I've seen this often, too. I have a physicist friend who thinks in precisely these terms. I don't think that their claim is necessarily that science will "catch up", but instead that it merely could. This lets them be pro-Mormon without being anti-reality.