The Dude wrote:CaliforniaKid wrote:Certainly the scientific method IS the way to analyze such claims -- but it's got to be done right.
I'm with you there. Shoddy research sucks for everybody.
CaliforniaKid wrote:The Dude wrote:CaliforniaKid wrote:Certainly the scientific method IS the way to analyze such claims -- but it's got to be done right.
I'm with you there. Shoddy research sucks for everybody.
Daniel Peterson wrote:If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.
Mister Scratch wrote:This thread reminds me of a post of Prof. Peterson's, in which he was endeavoring to disarm caricatures relating to Kolob:Daniel Peterson wrote:If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.
In other words, everyone is entitled to their own stupidity. (I guess that is what he is saying, anyhow.)
The Dude wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:This thread reminds me of a post of Prof. Peterson's, in which he was endeavoring to disarm caricatures relating to Kolob:Daniel Peterson wrote:If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.
In other words, everyone is entitled to their own stupidity. (I guess that is what he is saying, anyhow.)
That's relativism for you. On the boards, Dan plays an Internet Mormon, not a Chapel Mormon. Pahoran typically plays the same part; I think it is significant that he hasn't come back to defend his ChapelMormon-esque claim that he knows the difference between silly superstition and real faith.
Mister Scratch wrote:You want to place bets as to how long it will take before the Krispy Kreme King responds to our assertions over on the fittingly named MADboard? E.g., "Over on another board, a certain poster is claiming that I am a relativist. Well, blah blah blah..."
If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.
We humans haven't even been able to come to a concenus when defining "reality" as it relates to the physical universe (particularly the more astract and subjective the notions, like "real love", "real penetance and contrision", "real depression and anxiety", "real success", etc.). So, I would suppose it even less likely that one could gain a concensus in defining what is real in terms of spiritual reality (where, as I see it, our respective spiritual epistmologies are, in general, considerably less developed than our physical/secular epistemologies).
So am I to guess that your answer to cinepro's question is no, one cannot explain how to tell the difference between silly superstition and real faith?
No, you are not to guess that. Rather, you would be correct to guess that there is no shared methodologies which would enable me or anyone else to bring the diverse audience to a concensus in distinguishing real faith from silly superstition. In short, it can't be done.