Latest testimony on MST proves DCP wrong

[_JohnStuartMill]

JSM, it's not my concern to establish just how much "interest" a person should have in science or what questions science can and can't answer. Your objection really has nothing to do with what I wrote, but to what you're reading into my post as my own commentary on the philosophy of science.

Cool, I was actually hoping that I was misreading you... ;-)

In regards to both comments, if a person has an interest in science such that science explains x, y, and z; and if the person changes their view - regardless of whether their change is intellectually justified or not - to science explaining only x and y (assuming that Z is yet a valid branch of science), then the person's interest in science has been "dampened".

Fair enough, but it's also true that it didn't look like Jamie ever thought that science explained z ('z' in this case being everything under the purview of biology... lol). But I'm being pedantic here -- I see your main point, and what you're saying can easily be modified to accommodate this objection.

[_Ray A]

in my opinion Jamie Turner engaged in some pretty poor reasoning in her testimony. But is a testimony supposed to be about reasoning, anyway, or whether or not you hold a Ph.D?

This part of her testimony sums up virtually all of the testimonies on MST:

I joined the LDS church after having a spiritual experience at one of their meetings. I went to the meeting in order to fulfill a requirement for a comparative religions class. I won’t describe the spiritual experience I had that day, nor experiences I have had since then. Some of those who read this know what I am talking about, and others of you have not yet experienced it. Those who grew up in the church and are used to it probably do not understand what a shock it is to the rest of us—to learn that God is real, that His Son really did come to Earth, and that He can and does communicate with those on Earth.

In other words, something you're likely to hear in a Sacrament meeting, not something derived from science nor reasoning (which could lead to a very different conclusion). Does anyone on MST say they arrived at a testimony by studying science, geology, biology, or even history? If so, I wonder what their non-believing peers would think of this? So what relevance, really, does a Ph.D have when it comes to testimony? Answer: None.

Here's Scott Lloyd on another thread, demonstrating what I mean:

When Christ told his followers, "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid" (Matthew 5:14) was he talkng about a precise physical and geographical location, or was he speaking metaphorically?

Ponder that, and perhaps you can see why I won't be force-fed a too-literal interpretation of a scriptural and theological concept.

Yes, dem "folk Mormons" just take literalism too far, but they're only reading literally what they've seen in LDS publications, including the scriptures. But to be an informed Mormon, you cannot take these things literally. And that's what the "informed" Mormons on MST do too. I'd be surprised if any of them fall into the "folk Mormon" category. They are "enlightened Mormons" with "educated testimonies", that still nevertheless have that "Chapel Mormon ring". But when you really scrutinise it, a Ph.D and a testimony are like chalk and cheese. If being smart, educated and degreed counts for something - it does not count for what Mormons call "testimony", because if it did, then it would be what Mormons also call "relying on the arm of flesh" and "the learning of men". Or, "I have a Ph.D, so you can really trust my testimony".

[_Gadianton]

Doctor Scratch and Ray,

You both bring up exceptionally good points and I totally agree. Unfortunately, DCP has forced the issue here, and the testimonies must be critiqued. If you check out my blog, a new project is underway to critique the testimonies of scientists on MST.

Note that my most recent post is a disclaimer that will be linked to before every review, which expresses my reservations on taking on this project.

The problem is, DCP does his thing, and then all the other apologists copy him. There is a culture now over at MAD that uses MST to justify about everything LDS, and then they point to the critics as having come up with nothing. DCP has been taunting me lately, saying that I don't do any substance. Well, some of us critics aren't really out to skewer well-meaning academics who just want to do their best to help their church. But if the apologists are going to throw these scholars in my face at every turn and boast that their output on MST is superior in quality to arguments of my fellow academics on MDB, then I really don't have a choice but to refute the testimonies of his scholars.

I know it isn't really that cool, but the apologists have left me with little choice.

[_moksha]

Dr. Peterson is always getting beat up here so I wanted to add a little celestial joy to his life:




------


Here is one for Dr. Shades as well:

[_bcspace]

She's already destroyed DCP's hopes for religion here. According to her, she at one time believed science could answer everything. But then she joined the LDS church, and her new religious influence convinced her that science couldn't answer everything, the LDS church specifically, dampened her interest in science.

Doesn't seem to be the case. It appears more that she felt free to pursue science to her heart's content under the auspices of the LDS Church and after doing so, she understands now that science doesn't have all the answers especially when it comes to matters of faith.

[_bcspace]

Dr. Peterson is always getting beat up here so I wanted to add a little celestial joy to his life:




------


Here is one for Dr. Shades as well:

What happens when the doughnuts are all gone?

[_Some Schmo]

What's the real lesson to be learned reading MST?

- Smart people can believe dumb crap
- Anyone can be a "scholar" if you define it loosely enough
- Education doesn't seem to bleed into irrational belief
- mor.mons are all about appearances and don't care much about substance
- Some people are easily impressed

[_Ray A]

Hello Dan,

I saw your post.

It seems that nobody here really wants to attempt to deny the modest point of my opening post -- that the entries from scientists on "Mormon Scholars Testify" constitute anecdotal evidence against the claim that religious belief lessens the believer's interest in science -- despite the bold (and manifestly silly) claim on another board that Jamie Turner's entry has proven me wrong. That is wise.

You believe that a sampling of 160 Mormon scholars is “anecdotal evidence” that religion doesn’t lessen interest in science? Do you believe that 160 ex-Mormon testimonies on Ex-Mormon.org is anecdotal evidence that Mormonism is a fraud?

Hope all is well with you.


PS: You have to admit; it was also a good opportunity to promote MST.

[_Gadianton]

It seems that nobody here really wants to attempt to deny the modest point of my opening post -- that the entries from scientists on "Mormon Scholars Testify" constitute anecdotal evidence against the claim that religious belief lessens the believer's interest in science

I deny the "modest point" that the entries from scientists on MST constitute anecdotal evidence against the claim that religious belief lessens the believer's interest in science.

Oh -- I'm sorry, he meant "here" as MAD where one might get banned for expressing this opinion.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It seems that nobody here really wants to attempt to deny the modest point of my opening post -- that the entries from scientists on "Mormon Scholars Testify" constitute anecdotal evidence against the claim that religious belief lessens the believer's interest in science

I deny the "modest point" that the entries from scientists on MST constitute anecdotal evidence against the claim that religious belief lessens the believer's interest in science.

Oh -- I'm sorry, he meant "here" as MAD where one might get banned for expressing this opinion.

It may be his "modest" point, but the "real" point seems to be that he is an unscrupulous opportunist who's using these people's deeply-held spiritual feelings to fight his obsessive Mopologetic war. If he wants to promote the site and encourage others to read the testimonies, fine. But for him to exploit these LDS scholars for Mopologetic ends....well, that's just appalling. But he seems to be deluding himself on this matter:

I won't argue testimonies or personal expressions with you. I haven't asked contributors to "Mormon Scholars Testify" for arguments -- have, in fact, explicitly said that I didn't expect such -- and won't blind-side or betray them by treating their submissions as arguments (successful or failed).

Well, then, he better not let any of them read his posts on the aptly named MADboard.