The worst thing about Mormonism

[_rcrocket]

Oh great. A debate between two of the worst writers on this board.

[Guest]

The approach you take, that science and religion are two separate ways of knowing, is essentially correct.

Out of curiosity, what specific things can one "know" via the religious method?

Religion is not a way of "knowing," it is a way of believing, or reasoning (or lack of reasoning). Religion has no reliable, verifiable, replicable, objective method to know anything.

I believe that something akin to the scientific process can be used to test religions truth claims. It involves the process of establishing hypotheses, clarifying assumptions, and using reasoning and observation to test the validity of hypotheses.

For example, the religious assertion that God is a "loving father," is easily shown to be false through this process, it depends on how we define "loving father." By almost any reasonable definition one can think of, a "loving father' does not kill his children because they disobey him. Ergo, God is not a loving father.

See, I just disproved one of the common religious assertions of Christianity.

You're exactly right, Guy. I mis-spoke when I said religion is a "way of knowing". Religion is a realm that uses specific ways of knowing (i.e. authority, intuition/revelation). Gould describes religion and science as separate magisteria (domains) that use different "ways of knowing" and they only encounter conflict when one or the other is overstepping its boundary. The four "ways of knowing" that I'm familiar with are:

1. Authority--gain knowledge from a text, teacher, parent, or god
2. Intuition--gain knowledge from feelings, a sixth sense, mysticism, revelation, etc.
3. Empirical--gain knowledge from experience with the five senses
4. Rational--gain knowledge from logical thinking, scientific method

My understanding is that the first two ways of knowing are predominantly used in religion (I'm speaking mainly about Judeo-Christianity here). The Bible is viewed as an authoritative text, god as the ultimate authority. Personal inspiration and/or revelation are the means the believer uses to proclaim knowledge of a soul, the resurrection of Christ, life after death, the existance of god. Are these valid ways of knowing? Can someone claim they gained knowledge by these means? I think that gets into a deeper philosophical argument about the definition of knowledge/truth that I don't have a background in. However, I don't feel these ways of knowing are useful when dealing with the natural world. Empiricism and rationalism are the best tools we currently have to describe natural phenomena.

edited to add: (the part I bolded) I think the scientific method can be used to test some religious claims. But claims such as "there is life after death", "the body has a soul", and "god lives", I believe, are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. However, as I stated in my earlier post, I believe the scientific method can be used to discuss religion if religion is a natural phenomenon.

[_dartagnan]

Oh great. A debate between two of the worst writers on this board.

Well, then why don't you back out so it will only be one of the worst writers arguing with himself.

[_Doctor Steuss]

My understanding is that the first two ways of knowing are predominantly used in religion (I'm speaking mainly about Judeo-Christianity here). The Bible is viewed as an authoritative text, god as the ultimate authority. Personal inspiration and/or revelation are the means the believer uses to proclaim knowledge of a soul, the resurrection of Christ, life after death, the existance of god. Are these valid ways of knowing? Can someone claim they gained knowledge by these means? I think that gets into a deeper philosophical argument about the definition of knowledge/truth that I don't have a background in. However, I don't feel these ways of knowing are useful when dealing with the natural world. Empiricism and rationalism are the best tools we currently have to describe natural phenomena.

I don't know why this reminded me of these quotes, but it did, and I’m too egotistical not to share:

"For Aristotle, everything in nature has an end or purpose. Here Aristotelian science conflicts with modern science, which has given up the question of 'Why?' and asks 'How?'"

From Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Third Edition), pg. 340.

Also (in discussing Aristotle's reverse of Plato's epistemology):

"Knowledge depends on sense experience. By sensation a person grasps the particular; by the intellect that person learns the universal. Knowledge is abstraction. Sensations provide the beginning or basis of knowledge, but not its end. Since the universal is in the particular, the intellect can go beyond sense experience and abstract the form from matter, the universe from the particular. The mind has no form or structure of its own to impose on things perceived. it finds the universal by taking the common elements from all the individuals."

Same book, pg. 341

[_silentkid]

I don't know why this reminded me of these quotes, but it did, and I’m too egotistical not to share:

"For Aristotle, everything in nature has an end or purpose. Here Aristotelian science conflicts with modern science, which has given up the question of 'Why?' and asks 'How?'"

From Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Third Edition), pg. 340.

Also (in discussing Aristotle's reverse of Plato's epistemology):

"Knowledge depends on sense experience. By sensation a person grasps the particular; by the intellect that person learns the universal. Knowledge is abstraction. Sensations provide the beginning or basis of knowledge, but not its end. Since the universal is in the particular, the intellect can go beyond sense experience and abstract the form from matter, the universe from the particular. The mind has no form or structure of its own to impose on things perceived. it finds the universal by taking the common elements from all the individuals."

Same book, pg. 341

Great quotes, Stu. I especially like the first one (I remember explaining to my biology students that religion likes to ask why questions, while science deals with how questions), though I'm not sure I think that everything in nature has an end or purpose. I'll have to re-read that second one a few times. This is where my puny understanding of all things philosophical rears it's Barry Bondish noggin.

[_rcrocket]

Oh great. A debate between two of the worst writers on this board.

Well, then why don't you back out so it will only be one of the worst writers arguing with himself.

And, the schoolyard retort. Carry on.

[_dartagnan]

Out of curiosity, what specific things can one "know" via the religious method?

Religion is essentially a set of beliefs which develop certain ways of life, usually involving a required loyalty to specific group/authority and adherence to a moral code. Rituals, authorities and doctrines are natural products of theism, and they are developed by theologians and philosophers in an attempt to make sense of their knowledge that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us. It is man's way of reaching out to a creator; a creator that we know nothing about except that it/he/she exists.

Religion isn't necessarily a "method" for gaining knowledge in as much as it is a belief system based on knowledge already gained. The knowledge all theists agree upon is that a divine being exists which is appropriately called the creator of all. So how do humans gain knowledge of a divine agent? How this knowledge is perceived by theistic humans, is the mystery. It isn't perceived by one of the natural five senses, which auotmatically makes the scientific method useless for verification. This is because the scientific method deals only with what we perceive through the five senses. Knowledge that a divine intelligence exists doesn't come from sight, sound, hearing, smell or touch. It comes to many people through unknown means. But to others it comes through reason. Even agnostic or atheistic scientists become theistic based on their own experience with science. For them the universe appears to be too perfect for our existence to be happenstance.

But none of this knowledge can be tested using the limited scientific method.

So does this mean their knowledge really isn't knowledge? Not according to the definition of knowledge, which can simply refer to a perception of truth or an awareness with certainty that something is true. It can also simply refer to the acquaintance or familiarity of something gained by experience.

[Reflexzero]

Great quotes, Stu. I especially like the first one (I remember explaining to my biology students that religion likes to ask why questions, while science deals with how questions), though I'm not sure I think that everything in nature has an end or purpose.

There was once a time when philosophy was essentially a religion. I think that “religion” could benefit greatly if instead of having “dogmas” it went back to the philosophical “religions” and began asking questions.

I'll have to re-read that second one a few times. This is where my puny understanding of all things philosophical rears it's Barry Bondish noggin.

Aristotle’s thought ultimately confuses me as well. But, since his influence is so broad, (like is sometimes said) even if you disagree with him, his language must be used in your attack. One aspect of his thought that I particularly like is his views on moral virtue (that actions have to have three qualities: they must be voluntary, chosen, and in conformity to the mean**).

In the end though, the cynicism of Diogenese (of Sinope) makes much more sense to me than Aristotelian ideals. ;-)

“When he was sunning himself in the Craneum, Alexander came and stood over him and said, ‘Ask of me any boon you like.’ To which he replied ‘Stand out of my light.’”

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers , 6.38

---
**Side note/FYI:
As I didn’t know what the “mean” meant when I initially began reading some of Aristotle’s junk, I figure I’ll just clarify just in case there are any others that are as unfamiliar with it as I once was. The doctrine of the mean essentially identifies virtue as the middle term between the extremes of excess and deficiency. One example would be that courage is the “mean” between foolhardiness (the excess) and cowardice (the deficiency).

[_Some Schmo]

As your ignorance is annoying.

I see you're now attacking CK and silentkid for being "morons," too. I wonder how long before you turn on guy sajer.

I thought you weren't annoyed. Back peddling once again, are ya? LOL... Shocker.

I never attacked CK or silentkid specifically, nor would I. I knew SK didn't agree with you (as one of his latest posts indicates), and I haven't read whatever CK post you're talking about... but if history teaches us anything, you think you understand it but really don't. There have been several posts in this thread contending this one moronic point you've tried to make, but I notice you haven't addressed most of them. Yet another shocker.

And if guy sajer tried to make the argument you're trying to pass off, I'd suspect that someone hacked his account. Guy deserves the benefit of the doubt. You quite clearly do not.

But I don't care either way. Seeing you flopping around like a fish out of water trying to make whatever ridiculous, idiotic thing stick is great fun for me, so go nuts, little panda. You've made my week very fun indeed. I'd actually thank you if I thought it was your intent.

heh heh

[_Chap]

Out of curiosity, what specific things can one "know" via the religious method?

Religion is essentially a set of beliefs which develop certain ways of life, usually involving a required loyalty to specific group/authority and adherence to a moral code. Rituals, authorities and doctrines are natural products of theism, and they are developed by theologians and philosophers in an attempt to make sense of their knowledge that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us. It is man's way of reaching out to a creator; a creator that we know nothing about except that it/he/she exists.

Religion isn't necessarily a "method" for gaining knowledge in as much as it is a belief system based on knowledge already gained. The knowledge all theists agree upon is that a divine being exists which is appropriately called the creator of all. So how do humans gain knowledge of a divine agent? How this knowledge is perceived by theistic humans, is the mystery. It isn't perceived by one of the natural five senses, which auotmatically makes the scientific method useless for verification. This is because the scientific method deals only with what we perceive through the five senses. Knowledge that a divine intelligence exists doesn't come from sight, sound, hearing, smell or touch. It comes to many people through unknown means. But to others it comes through reason. Even agnostic or atheistic scientists become theistic based on their own experience with science. For them the universe appears to be too perfect for our existence to be happenstance.

But none of this knowledge can be tested using the limited scientific method.

So does this mean their knowledge really isn't knowledge? Not according to the definition of knowledge, which can simply refer to a perception of truth or an awareness with certainty that something is true. It can also simply refer to the acquaintance or familiarity of something gained by experience.

You write at some length in response to a short question, but it is not entirely clear to me what your answer is. However, let me for the sake of argument take it that your answer is:

that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us

Now I wonder if you could give relatively succinct answers to these two questions (and please be nice and answer them rather than telling me why you think I am asking them):

1. Is there (for you) a difference between believing "that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us" and knowing "that a God exists, who remains hidden from all of us", and is so what is that difference?

2. Would you kindly tell me one specific thing that YOU know through the religious method, and how you are sure you know it?

Thanks in advance.