Latest Ensign Article--Living a Balanced Life

[_asbestosman]

It does but there's no balance anymore for me. Trying to convince me that I need a balanced view about God existing at this point is like saying I need to balance my theories of the Earth's shape by studying with the Flat-Earthers so I can make a balanced decision. For some it will be the same as me. For others, very different.

But the flat earth is still quite separate. Giving information about X (Joseph Smith married other mens wives) is quite different from saying the church is false. Giving true information about the earth which is supported by facts in a scientific manner as well as the science of curved space-time is quite different than disregarding parsimony and coming up with some kind of warped-space explanation for the "apparent" curature of the Earth which might really be flat after all.

In the end though, I think true balance is impossible. Some things are so absurd on the face of it that they do not need balanced study. Determining which ones are such is tricky. We give it a reasonable shot. Is ignoring the unflattering parts of church history giving it a reasonable shot? Maybe, maybe not. I would say that out-of-hand dismissal for being unflattering is unbalanced. Not searching further because the preliminary examination tells you it seems to have little merit would be a reasonably balanced approach.

[_Who Knows]

Recreational drugs are a cop-out. The real challenge is to get your brain to that state without such crutches.

God is a cop-out. ;)

Nehor's just never had a beer, I'm guessing.

[_Moniker]

What does the article state is the way to achieve a balanced life?

[_Coggins7]

Recreational drugs are a cop-out. The real challenge is to get your brain to that state without such crutches.

God is a cop-out. ;)

Nice cop out.

[_The Nehor]

Recreational drugs are a cop-out. The real challenge is to get your brain to that state without such crutches.

God is a cop-out. ;)

God then is a very demanding cop-out. So much so that I sometimes think life would be easier if he weren't there.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor's just never had a beer, I'm guessing.

I've been drunk if that's what you're implying.

[_Runtu]

God then is a very demanding cop-out. So much so that I think life would be easier if he weren't there.

To some extent you're right, if you're thinking in terms of dos and don'ts. But I think it's actually easier to live a life grounded in some idea of God telling you what to do. You don't have to worry about what's right and wrong because you have someone external telling you how to make choices. It's an awful lot harder to figure out what is right and wrong, not because some God said so, but because things are actually right and wrong. And then once you figure that out, you live by that moral compass without any expectation of reward.

[_asbestosman]

God then is a very demanding cop-out. So much so that I sometimes think life would be easier if he weren't there.

I wonder if nothingness is easier. After all, 2 Nephi 2 states that without God there would be nothing--neither things to act nor to be acted upon.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Church education and the ID debate are separate issues. ID simply isn't science. If ID had merit, then equal time would have its place.

This is scientistic propaganda, and is nothing more that a debate avoidance tactic. ID is both a philosophical and scientific critique of Darwinian principles. Its devastating effects are well represented in both the hysteria and well poisoning of Darwinian fundamentalists in opposing any serious confrontation with it. Claiming that it isn't science is a dance; ID theorists are working to create plausible theories of intelligent intervention in nature, and, in the mean time, nothing precludes bright people with degrees in biology, mathematics, and physics from criticizing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has no inherent right to immunity from criticism because such criticism isn't explicitly postulating a counter theory at that particular time. Pointing out the holes and inconsistencies is quite sufficient, and unless problems can be addressed, whining that ID critics have no alternative theory only masks the fact that the criticisms have are lodged in the tissues of the theory. Most of what passes for critique of ID is really just scientists with a vested interest in the status quo performing a gate keeping function for an orthodoxy.

The universe is not a great machine, but a great thought, as Jeans said. Darwinism doesn't come close to actually explaining the development of life except in explicitly limited mechanistic terms, which it very well may do nicely. Origins are completely outside its purview, as is teleology, which its major proponents traditionally deny.

The best ID theory doesn't want to destroy evolutionary theory, just bring its head out of the clouds.

[_Moniker]

The best ID theory doesn't want to destroy evolutionary theory, just bring its head out of the clouds.

Huh. Can you go into more detail in the Ben Stein thread? I'd love to hear you muse on the theory of evolution being in the clouds vs where ID is.