Facilitated Communications

[_Themis]

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 don't see anyone saying that it doesn't, only that this is not what is being discussed.

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

We have already shown that some are and some are not. Why not deal with those.

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

But the church does not limit it to that like you want to

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.

This is not entirely correct. The church wants people to use a subjective(an unreliable one but that is for another discussion) experience to test it's religious claims and no other methods. It does not teach that all of it's claims are not verifiable by other means.

Pretty simple stuff overall.

It really is.

[_Themis]

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.

For your examples no, but that doesn't mean that many of it's claims cannot be verified through other means.

[Guest]

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

If a given religion tells its members: 'Pray daily, pay your tithes, and keep the commandments, and the Lord will open up the windows of heaven and pour out blessings such that there will not be room enough to receive them', this is a truth claim.

If the blessings are material, we can then objectively analyze that population to look for correlations between diligent religious observance and increased household income, or a decrease in home foreclosures, or higher property values... whatever.

If the blessings are non-material, we might objectively study the population looking for decreases in crime, violence, child and elder abuse, drug use, etc.

To say that the truth claims of a religion are completely outside the realm of scientific inquiry is to say that humans cannot experience them. A blessing unexperienced is the same as Carl Sagan's invisible dragon who breathes flames which cannot be felt or seen.

Perhaps you could explain more why you feel that religious truth claims are not verifiable by science. I will concede your point if you reference the 'fact' of a Deistic god, but the Theistic, intercessory God, as described by most monotheistic religions, is provably imaginary.

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

I did not ask such a question. It is nonsensical. The process of science is available for humans to use to evaluate truth claims, including many claims made by religions.

[_Themis]

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.

Here you go http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Exactly.

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

This is an incorrect way to use the word truth. True and false are about proposition. Now maybe you should address religious claims which are propositions. WE have already brought up some examples.

[_Runtu]

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.

That's true only if such individual members keep such beliefs to themselves. Publicly declaring that there were no literal Nephites, for example, will get you fired from BYU, even if you say it off-campus and unofficially. Heck, they won't even hire you if your "individual" belief comes up in the job interview.

[_mfbukowski]

This is an incorrect way to use the word truth.

LOL

Save your breath. Just the idea that there is an "incorrect" way to use any word, much less the word in question is simply uninformed philosophically.

I will pretty much only be responding to beefcalf here unless someone answers the questions I first asked.

He seems to be the only one willing to discuss things rather than unending assertion of the same points over and over.

[_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.

That's true only if such individual members keep such beliefs to themselves. Publicly declaring that there were no literal Nephites, for example, will get you fired from BYU, even if you say it off-campus and unofficially. Heck, they won't even hire you if your "individual" belief comes up in the job interview.

It should get you fired!

What educated person would assert such a thing? Proving that there were "no literal Nephites" is extraordinarily harder to prove (impossible??) than that there WERE literal Nephites.

Only a fool would even assert such a thing.

There are stories which are verifiable and stories which are not verifiable. I believe that nearly all of the Bible stories "could have happened", but that there is no evidence possible to verify whether or not they did.

Only a fool would assert absolutely that such things could not have happened- and in many cases these things are allegorical anyway.

I wasn't there- all we have for most of history is "his-story".

[Guest]

Save your breath. Just the idea that there is an "incorrect" way to use any word, much less the word in question is simply uninformed philosophically.

I will pretty much only be responding to beefcalf here unless someone answers the questions I first asked.

He seems to be the only one willing to discuss things rather than unending assertion of the same points over and over.

Then deal with them instead of ignoring them. I have been fairly nice to you, and only brought up what I see as incorrect. You again are trying to limit how one defines the word truth to fit your own apologetic needs that the church clearly does not teach, so why not back it up.

by the way You admitted it was a false dichotomy so we seem to agree that it would be wrong to call science or religion true.

[Guest]

That's true only if such individual members keep such beliefs to themselves. Publicly declaring that there were no literal Nephites, for example, will get you fired from BYU, even if you say it off-campus and unofficially. Heck, they won't even hire you if your "individual" belief comes up in the job interview.

It should get you fired!

What educated person would assert such a thing? Proving that there were "no literal Nephites" is extraordinarily harder to prove (impossible??) than that there WERE literal Nephites.

He was talking about belief here.

Only a fool would even assert such a thing.

There are stories which are verifiable and stories which are not verifiable. I believe that nearly all of the Bible stories "could have happened", but that there is no evidence possible to verify whether or not they did.

Only a fool would assert absolutely that such things could not have happened- and in many cases these things are allegorical anyway.

I wasn't there- all we have for most of history is "his-story".

We get tired of your absolutism game here. No one is asserting anything absolutely. When will you figure this out? And I wasn't there is a poor apologetic game. We can know with degrees of certainty for different events in the past based on the available evidence. So yes one can assert that the Nephites were not literal based on the evidence. It may not be absolute, but nothing is.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Mark, you strike me as an intellectual bully. Leave the philosophy, or your misuse of it in the chapel.

Back to what I was doing...