Facilitated Communications

[_Themis]

So why did you bring up the leeches then? What does that have to do with religious belief?

Which religious beliefs are you talking about, or should I say which religious claims are you talking about? They are not all the same.

[_beefcalf]

THAT is precisely the point. So if 15 million people think it is "true"- who are you to argue with them?

It's almost as if you don't understand the original point made in my original post, above.

The whole point is that lots and lots of people can believe something that is apparently wonderful, that makes them happy, and yet is still completely and utterly without merit and without validity.


So if 15 million people think it MAKES THEM HAPPY- who are you to argue with them?

No argument.

So if 15 million people think it BRINGS THEM CLOSER TO CHRIST- who are you to argue with them?

No argument.

So if 15 million people think it is 'true'- who are you to argue with them?

Big argument.

Because there is an objectiveness to truth. Again, please do not redefine 'truth' to mean 'makes me happy', or 'makes me a better person' or 'brings me closer to my God'.

[_mfbukowski]

3) Widespread systems of belief have been observed (such as FC) wherein the believers are all sincere, but misinformed or otherwise incorrect.

But notice there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an alleged "scientific truth" as presented by FC and a religious belief, and how one views the "truth" of either claim. Religious "truths" are verifiable only through subjective experience, while scientific "truths" are objectively verifiable through experiments which can be replicated.

4) The logical possibility must remain that, even though every LDS church member is absolutely sincere in his/her belief, the truth claims of the church are still false.

Again- you are asserting that this is a "logical possibility" without providing ANY criteria by which such an alleged "logical possibility" could be tested.

Validity of belief can be obtained when any objective party can use a given process and produce consistent results.

Yes, that's true for science, but we are not talking about science here.

Another example of a process that we might investigate is Moroni's Promise. This process, however, does not produce consistent results. Some people who use this process end up convinced that the Book of Mormon is true. Others are not convinced.

Suppose one said "Ok- then it was not "true" for them" Could you handle that without your brain exploding or anything?

From reading your response, it seems you view 'validity of belief' and 'truth' to be defined by whether or not they make you a better person, or whether they make you feel good.

I don't consider this to be a very useful definition of 'truth'. Why not call it 'useful' or 'enjoyable'? If it is not empirically and objectively true, don't call it 'true'.

It is a view of truth put forth by many philosophers, which view truth as pragmatic. Which is "true"- Newtonian Physics or Quantum Mechanics? Or is Aristotle's view of the elements as consisting of earth, air, fire and water "false"- or is it just a different paradigm for seeing the world?

There are absolute truths, and we as rational humans have access to many of them.

An interesting assertion. What is your basis for this belief?

And yes, some beliefs are more valid than others. The belief that Genesis is a fiction invented by stone-age desert nomads is more valid than the belief that the Garden of Eden, the Flood of Noah and the Tower of Babel were real historical events (in the sense that the first belief is 100% true and valid and the second belief is 100% false).

Not quite what to make of that one!

[_mfbukowski]

THAT is precisely the point. So if 15 million people think it is "true"- who are you to argue with them?

It's almost as if you don't understand the original point made in my original post, above.

The whole point is that lots and lots of people can believe something that is apparently wonderful, that makes them happy, and yet is still completely and utterly without merit and without validity.


So if 15 million people think it MAKES THEM HAPPY- who are you to argue with them?

No argument.

So if 15 million people think it BRINGS THEM CLOSER TO CHRIST- who are you to argue with them?

No argument.

So if 15 million people think it is 'true'- who are you to argue with them?

Big argument.

Because there is an objectiveness to truth. Again, please do not redefine 'truth' to mean 'makes me happy', or 'makes me a better person' or 'brings me closer to my God'.

You might have a point if this is what I was arguing.

[_Runtu]

That's funny, I thought we were talking about Joseph being a "fraudster" and then you inserted something about leeches.

Since you made the point, you must understand that medicinal science is quite different than religious belief.

So why did you bring up the leeches then? What does that have to do with religious belief?

What I was getting at is that some religious belief is falsifiable and verifiable through scientific means, as some religions make specific claims about the world that we can check on. Where we get into trouble is when we insist that reason and science have absolutely no place in religious discussion. It's a convenient apologetic strategy, but it's wrong.

As for Joseph being a "fraudster" (not my words, obviously), I honestly don't know what to think of him. Some of what he did was laudable and, dare I say, inspired; of course, some of what he did was despicable and manipulative. Fraudster? I don't know. I don't read minds, especially those of people who died 166 years ago.

[_Themis]

But notice there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an alleged "scientific truth" as presented by FC and a religious belief, and how one views the "truth" of either claim. Religious "truths" are verifiable only through subjective experience, while scientific "truths" are objectively verifiable through experiments which can be replicated.

This is incorrect. A subjective expereince is not a way to verify many religious truth or truth claims. The church's views of religious truth are not what you are saying, and again we can back it up, and again you cannot. Must get frustrating. :)

Yes, that's true for science, but we are not talking about science here.

It's also true for certain religious claims that have to do with things like the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham, etc.

Suppose one said "Ok- then it was not "true" for them" Could you handle that without your brain exploding or anything?

You might believe this, but the vast majority of the church does not, and the church does teaches that it is true for all. Your problem is that you want to redefine the word truth to how some philosophers are using it, which is ok for certain things, but the main definition is what the church is using for many of it's claims. I think this is a cheap apologetic to try and remove all your religious beliefs from constructive criticism.

It is a view of truth put forth by many philosophers, which view truth as pragmatic.

Truth is about whether a proposition is correct. If one says something makes them happy while another says it doesn't then they are both true. If one says the earth is flat while another says it is spherical, they cannot both be true.

Or is Aristotle's view of the elements as consisting of earth, air, fire and water "false"- or is it just a different paradigm for seeing the world?

It depends on the proposition. Same with Newtonian physics and Quantum physics.

An interesting assertion. What is your basis for this belief?

It's rational. Either the Book of Mormon is a story about a real people or it is not. This is a truth that is unchanging or another words absolute. All we can do is look at the evidence to try and figure out which is more likely, and the subjective expereince is a terrible method to do this.

[_beefcalf]

But notice there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an alleged "scientific truth" as presented by FC and a religious belief, and how one views the "truth" of either claim. Religious "truths" are verifiable only through subjective experience, while scientific "truths" are objectively verifiable through experiments which can be replicated.

...

Validity of belief can be obtained when any objective party can use a given process and produce consistent results.

Yes, that's true for science, but we are not talking about science here.

Science is not a thing, but rather a process used to separate fact from fiction.

Where are you getting the idea that the set of claims made by religions are somehow outside the purview of scientific inquiry? Possibly some are, such as life after death, but only because religion, in an attempt to survive in a world increasingly moving towards rationality, has defined that their own truth claims are exempt from rational inquiry. But the LDS church DOES make claims which are subject to scientific inquiry: the origin of the native peoples of America is but one. The LDS assertion that Genesis and the Book of Mormon are literal history are others. When we apply the process of science to some claims made by religion and find them to be unsupportable, it should be understandable why critics might reject the claims those same religions make which are not testable.

It is a view of truth put forth by many philosophers, which view truth as pragmatic. Which is "true"- Newtonian Physics or Quantum Mechanics? Or is Aristotle's view of the elements as consisting of earth, air, fire and water "false"- or is it just a different paradigm for seeing the world?

To ask which is true, quantum physics or Newtonian physics is a false dichotomy. The fact that we accept quantum physics as the 'most truthful' explanation for the physical world does not relegate Newtonian physics to the scrap-heap of falsehoods. Newtonian physics is still a great 'rule-of-thumb' because it is still provides valid predictive capabilities for many, many observations humans can make. The fact that you have a set of very sharp steak knives does not impel you to throw your butter knives in the trash. They are not as sharp but they are useful for tasks which do not require a finely honed edge. Owning a car does not mean you reject bicycles.

[_mfbukowski]

I am asserting that subjective experience is the ONLY "method" which can be used for an individual to determine which path leads him closer to Christ and is most fulfilling for that individual.

I am also asserting that religious truth claims are not of the kind which are verifiable by science.

Does that make it simple for everyone?

"But that's not what the church teaches"!

In assertion 1, I would say that indeed it IS what the church teaches

In assertion 2, I would say that such a belief does not conflict with Mormon orthopraxy. In other words, one can be a good practicing Mormon and not believe that any Mormon truth claims must be verifiable scientifically.

Pretty simple stuff overall.

[_mfbukowski]

There are no questions about the origin of Native Americans nor about a literal interpretation of Genesis on a temple recommend interview.

Or on a baptismal interview either.

In short, no one cares what individual members believe about those things.

[_mfbukowski]

Science is not a thing, but rather a process used to separate fact from fiction.

Precisely. Now define "fact". If you say "facts are objectively verifiable" all you are saying is that science defines what is "objectively verifiable" which is circular.

To ask which is true, quantum physics or Newtonian physics is a false dichotomy. The fact that we accept quantum physics as the 'most truthful' explanation for the physical world does not relegate Newtonian physics to the scrap-heap of falsehoods. Newtonian physics is still a great 'rule-of-thumb' because it is still provides valid predictive capabilities for many, many observations humans can make. The fact that you have a set of very sharp steak knives does not impel you to throw your butter knives in the trash. They are not as sharp but they are useful for tasks which do not require a finely honed edge. Owning a car does not mean you reject bicycles.

Exactly.

And what I am saying is that to ask which is true- science OR religion- is a false dichotomy also.