Defending Mormonism for fun and profit

[_Gazelam]

What experience have you had in the past with the Holy Ghost? Any experiences on your mission? The MTC? Post mission?

Also, what specific problem did you have with the Book of Moses?

[_Gorman]

Physicsguy wrote:

the argument that we don't know anything has some merit to it.

No it doesn't - not even close.

I understand that we cannot say we don't know anything, but it is perfectly fair to say that we know extremely little

.

Physicsguy:

If we know "extremely little", then we "KNOW" "extremely little", and that means that even you concede that knowledge is possible. Since you concede that, your claim that "the argument that we don't know anything has some merit" can only be ridiculous.

You misunderstand me. When discussing knowledge colloquially, one can say that they don't know anything about math (for example), when they in fact know something. The point they are trying to make is that the difference between what they know and knowing nothing is insignificant when compared to what is required to solve a specific problem. It is this concept that I was trying to get across. It appears obvious that this is the concept the people you are speaking about were using as well.

You mention the sorts of "fundamental questions" that religion attempts to answer. I agree that they are important questions, and I would like to know the answer to them as much as you would. Two quick points:

I don't know that they are inherently unscientific questions at all. Their answers may be far away, but there is no reason in principle why the question of, say, how or why life began shouldn't be a question answerable through the same sorts of efforts which have given us answers to other questions. Mormons should believe this more than anyone, as it happens, for they believe that God is a tangible "personage of flesh and bone", who lives near a real star (Kolob). Mormons also believe that the soul or spirit is material.

Yes, we like to believe that science can answer these questions at some point, but that is just our assumption, we have no guarantee of any kind.

When you say that science has already given us answers to questions, I say that is misleading. I have tried to point out that the types of questions that science has reliably given us answers to are fundamentally different (i.e. how to build a computer, or warm up a frozen pizza). There are no questions that science has answered with verifiability that are similar to the 'fundamental questions' (metaphysical questions). Now, we like to think the answers that science has given for these types of questions are somewhat reliable, but there is no guarantee. Some people trust scientific metaphysical answers a lot, other people (including scientists) trust them less, but that decision is quite subjective.

The other point is that hypothesizing answers to these questions is not equivalent to answering them; but hypothesizing is all that anyone can do right now, even religionists. "Religious" answers, then, have no more reason to be believed than non-religious answers. For example, what leg up on the secular man does a priest have when tackling "how should we live?". None at all. And if any corroboration of an answer can ever come, it must come through not some other assertion by some other priest, but by something like evidence - something real, quantifiable, comprehensible.... You know?

Agreed.

Another way of putting this is like this: Anyone can suggest an "answer" to one of these big question; but the real questions are, Is this answer really true? What reason is there to believe it? How would we know if it were true?, etc. Simply announcing some answer or other does nothing toward these necessary subsequent questions, does it? I might say, "alien sasquatches created the world", and my answer would have the same reason to be believed (namely, none) as "the spirit of the man who would become Jesus of Nazareth created the world". We still have no reason to imagine we are any closer to "the answer" to this one, regardless of what emotional response we might have to any particular answer.

Agreed. We have no scientific verifiability in any of these 'answers' to fundamental questions. Each person must decide what sorts of 'evidence' they are to believe (this is because no evidence of this nature is verifiable scientifically). Again, this is purely subjective. Of course I'm still just talking about fundamental questions, not practical ones.

[_Tal Bachman]

The point they are trying to make is that the difference between what they know and knowing nothing is insignificant when compared to what is required to solve a specific problem. It is this concept that I was trying to get across. It appears obvious that this is the concept the people you are speaking about were using as well.

Actually, that is not the point they are trying to make at all. Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all. If you think this position is absurd (and counterproductive for a Mormon apologist), I think you're entirely correct.

If you don't believe me, just start a thread about this on the MAD board and see what kind of stupid responses you get.

There are no questions that science has answered with verifiability that are similar to the 'fundamental questions' (metaphysical questions).

But the point is, neither has religion - not even close. The other point is, there is no reason in principle why science (kind of hate that word actually) shouldn't discover answers to those sorts of questions one day, but the same cannot be said of self-styled holy men who don't conduct any sort of credible investigation, but rather are destined to remain about on par with hypothesizing astrologers.

About Gazelam's question - Yes of course, I had loads of spiritual experiences; otherwise I wouldn't have been, I think, the most zealous member I ever knew. (I don't think I'd have eight kids, either, as it happens). And sure, I had riveting spiritual experiences before, during, and after my mission. Mormonism was my entire life; and certainly, without it nothing would have made sense. I couldn't even conceive of life without it. That is why it was so terrible - nauseating and disorienting and heartbreaking - to find out it wasn't what it claimed to be. In that moment, my entire identity vanished, I had no idea how to make sense of anything...it was really like a nightmare coming true. It was the worst moment of my entire life.

So, perhaps the question really ought to be about what the "spiritual experience" might be, if it is not some inculcation of "absolute knowledge" into us, as we imagine, from the creator of the universe, that "Joseph Smith always told the truth". After all, he, to put it simply, did not. What then of those very real "spiritual experiences"? That is a very good question, but maybe one for another thread. You probably think the explanation is just the one we always heard as Mormons. I used to, too. After all, unable to fathom any more plausible explanation, what else could we have thought?

About the Book of Moses, I don't know if I'd say that "I" have a problem with it - it is that Joseph Smith's Book of Moses itself has a pretty serious problem. That also might be a good topic for another thread, though.

If you are interested in that issue, Gazelam, there is a very interesting little book by Biblical/Hebrew scholar Richard Elliot Friedman called "The Hidden Book of the Bible". You can buy it off of Amazon.com or probably call around to Borders or Barnes and Noble. They often carry it. It sounds like a snore, but it's actually very engaging - it describes how the narrative portions of the Old Testament were put together; and it is very relevant to Joseph Smith's claims for his Book of Moses.

Good luck,

Tal

[_Daniel Peterson]

Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

[_grayskull]

I have to defend DCP on this one. I have never seen him argue against the viability of truth in order to even the playing field. I have no idea how he believes this way, but I do believe I recall him stating clearly that he thinks that Book of Mormon historicity, for instance, can be at least in principle demonstrated evidentially, and that the current case for it is evidentially greater than the case against it.

This is in contrast to Ben and J who both argue against the possibility of knowledge and bring up postmodernism. DCP has no interest in postmodernism and in fact, his philosophical leanings are towards the other extreme and have more in common, strangely, with fundamentalist Christians who believe in intelligent design etc..

[_Gorman]

The point they are trying to make is that the difference between what they know and knowing nothing is insignificant when compared to what is required to solve a specific problem. It is this concept that I was trying to get across. It appears obvious that this is the concept the people you are speaking about were using as well.

Actually, that is not the point they are trying to make at all. Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all. If you think this position is absurd (and counterproductive for a Mormon apologist), I think you're entirely correct.

If you don't believe me, just start a thread about this on the MAD board and see what kind of stupid responses you get.

I agree that if they are trying to say that we cannot know anything, then that is absurd, but I still suspect they are not arguing this (as at least one person has already attested to). I suspect they might be trying to say that we cannot know some "fundamental truth" with certainty, or some truth outside of testability. I personally agree with this position. This position clearly puts the examples you gave (building a computer or cell phone) in a separate category. If you think about it, there is actually quite a bit of knowledge that is outside of verifiability, or direct testability. Some things we can take educated guesses about, other things we can be mostly sure about, but technically these are still in the realm of non-testable/non-verifiable knowledge. When you are in this realm, there are always surprises.

There are no questions that science has answered with verifiability that are similar to the 'fundamental questions' (metaphysical questions).

But the point is, neither has religion - not even close. The other point is, there is no reason in principle why science (kind of hate that word actually) shouldn't discover answers to those sorts of questions one day, but the same cannot be said of self-styled holy men who don't conduct any sort of credible investigation, but rather are destined to remain about on par with hypothesizing astrologers.

I agree here. Neither science nor religion can give any credibility to what they say on matters of religion. We as people have to believe religion, believe science, believe some combination of the two, or ignore any 'fundamental' questions entirely, and quarantine our lives to just building computers and warming up frozen pizzas.

[_silentkid]

I suspect they might be trying to say that we cannot know some "fundamental truth" with certainty, or some truth outside of testability. I personally agree with this position. This position clearly puts the examples you gave (building a computer or cell phone) in a separate category. If you think about it, there is actually quite a bit of knowledge that is outside of verifiability, or direct testability. Some things we can take educated guesses about, other things we can be mostly sure about, but technically these are still in the realm of non-testable/non-verifiable knowledge. When you are in this realm, there are always surprises.

We as people have to believe religion, believe science, believe some combination of the two, or ignore any 'fundamental' questions entirely, and quarantine our lives to just building computers and warming up frozen pizzas.

Hey PhysicsGuy...I've been following your conversations with JAK and your responses in this thread as well. I think we share many of the same viewpoints. I'm wondering what you feel are the fundamental truths/questions that fall outside the realm of science. I'm not sure that this thread would be the best place to do this. I'm thinking maybe you could start a new thread and expound upon one of these fundamentals. This may help with some of the confusion that was apparent in the thread in the celestial forum. Just an idea.

[_Gorman]

I suspect they might be trying to say that we cannot know some "fundamental truth" with certainty, or some truth outside of testability. I personally agree with this position. This position clearly puts the examples you gave (building a computer or cell phone) in a separate category. If you think about it, there is actually quite a bit of knowledge that is outside of verifiability, or direct testability. Some things we can take educated guesses about, other things we can be mostly sure about, but technically these are still in the realm of non-testable/non-verifiable knowledge. When you are in this realm, there are always surprises.

We as people have to believe religion, believe science, believe some combination of the two, or ignore any 'fundamental' questions entirely, and quarantine our lives to just building computers and warming up frozen pizzas.

Hey PhysicsGuy...I've been following your conversations with JAK and your responses in this thread as well. I think we share many of the same viewpoints. I'm wondering what you feel are the fundamental truths/questions that fall outside the realm of science. I'm not sure that this thread would be the best place to do this. I'm thinking maybe you could start a new thread and expound upon one of these fundamentals. This may help with some of the confusion that was apparent in the thread in the celestial forum. Just an idea.

Sure, I think that would be good, but I've run out of time today, so I'll start a thread tomorrow.

'Science' and 'philosophy of science' as related to 'religion' are really the only things that get me posting anywhere. I haven't really started any threads on these topics as of yet because I wasn't sure how interesting it was to others. I'll put one up tomorrow.

[_silentkid]

'Science' and 'philosophy of science' as related to 'religion' are really the only things that get me posting anywhere. I haven't really started any threads on these topics as of yet because I wasn't sure how interesting it was to others. I'll put one up tomorrow.

This sounds good. I'll try to participate as much as I can. From what I've encountered here so far, it seems that a few others would be interested as well. Some topics may be outside of my realm of knowledge but I'll do the best I can. I'm still pretty new at all of this.

[_marg]

PhysicsGuy: There are no questions that science has answered with verifiability that are similar to the 'fundamental questions' (metaphysical questions).

Tal: But the point is, neither has religion - not even close. The other point is, there is no reason in principle why science (kind of hate that word actually) shouldn't discover answers to those sorts of questions one day, but the same cannot be said of self-styled holy men who don't conduct any sort of credible investigation, but rather are destined to remain about on par with hypothesizing astrologers.

PhysicsGuy: I agree here. Neither science nor religion can give any credibility to what they say on matters of religion.

You are not agreeing with Tal. Sheesh! He didn't say science can not give answers in the future on metaphysical questions. In fact he pointed out that in principle science may provide answers in the future.

Religion involves both supernatural claims as well as claims which pertain to the physical world. As knowledge of the physical world has grown, and it has grown relatively rapidly in the last 200 years to previous times, thanks to the scientific method, many religious claims have been superceded by evidence based scientifically warranted theories. Religious claims have shrunk in acceptance as scientific knowledge has grown. As Tal pointed out and you seem to have totally dismissed his point, religious claims are not backed up with any sort of credible investigation and hence they are completely unreliable. It is for this reason that science knowledge has displaced many religious claims. Science has proven itself to be reliable, religious claims have not.

Physics Guy: We as people have to believe religion, believe science, believe some combination of the two, or ignore any 'fundamental' questions entirely, and quarantine our lives to just building computers and warming up frozen pizzas.

Physics guy you appreciate science doesn't theorize about the supernatural claims in religion. It doesn't say anything about any God/Gods, heaven hell, afterlife.

Scientific theories are warranted by evidence/data and reasoning. Therefore there is good reason to rely upon science findings and theories. They are not considered absolute, they are best fit theories to explain phenomena given the information available and/or obtainable. It's not a perfect system, but it is progressive, forward thinking, flexible and productive. This can not be said of religious claims which are often archaic, inflexible, backward thinking or stagnant and non productive.

It appears that you do not appreciate that people can remain skeptical to fundamental questions such as God belief, that is without jumping to any assumed conclusions and yet still live fullfilled productive contended lives, respectful of others and themselves. You appear to believe that one needs a religious belief in a God, otherwise they live an unrewarding life.

One problem of assuming anything as fact is that it doesn't encourage further questioning and searching. Religious claims of absolute answers impedes further exploration and thinking on fundamental questions. So while it may be comforting to assume one has answers or that there is a God overseeing all, it's a belief unwarranted by objectively obtainable evidence. Whatever one believes has no affect on reality.