Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Daniel Peterson]

There is a difference between hypothetically imagining if something were true what the consequences would be and actively believing that thing to be true. There of course is nothing wrong with the former.

And the latter is inevitable.

Do you really, seriously, imagine that scholars and scientists always, often, or even commonly approach their subjects without any pre-existing beliefs?

I can't think of a historian who has ever done so.

[_Morrissey]

beastie, your apparent notion that others come to their fields without preconceived notions, loyalties, preferences, ideology, tastes, enthusiasms, aversions, commitments, etc., or even that, if they have such, these play no significant role in what they do, is simply naïve.

Interestingly, by sheer chance, I was reading something just last night that argued, in passing, that it was the Marxism of Stephen Jay Gould and some of his fellow "punctuated equilibrium" advocates that smoothed the way for their revision of neo-Darwinism -- a nice illustration of the impact that an extraneous ideological commitment can have (and not always for ill) on a person's area of scientific or scholarly expertise.



.

True enough. At least in science, the biases are open for scrutiny, discussion, and critique and can be (and are) invalidated over time through ongoing and rigorous theory development and empirical testing.

In the case of dogmatic religion, however, the biases are not open for scrutiny, discussion, or critique (indeed, in Mormonism, one can be cast out of the society for daring to scrutinize, discuss, or critique) and are rarely, if ever, invalidated over time, even in the face of accumulating empirical evidence.

So, while your point is broadly true, the context is quite different.

But there is no doubt that humans bring into all their endeavors a set of biases and an established world view that colors what they say and do and how they interpret what they see and hear. Filtering these out to arrive at "truth" is a challenging exercise.

[Guest]

Do you really, seriously, imagine that scholars and scientists always, often, or even commonly approach their subjects without any pre-existing beliefs?

No. Seeing how I said the opposite in this thread in posts of mine you already have responded to, I can't see why you would think this either. This appears to be your strawman for what is actually being stated.

There is something problematic with the assertion that one must already hold active belief in religious proposition p in order to appreciate the rationally coherent (secular) case for p. That is going beyond merely imaging if p were true to test out the implications of it, which is how you colorfully reinterpreted the statement in your last reply to me. It also goes beyond simply pointing out that theories exist within prior-held conceptual frameworks that help bring context to observations and ideas. It's a dodgy epistemic assertion, unlike your more trivial statements, that isn't obviously accepted. Indeed, it has all the seeming of simple special pleading you see in any number of apologetics for bad ideas.

It also strongly suggests someone revealing biases that are coloring how they see the world in an illicit way, much as you would accept for the countless examples I can come up with of highly credentialed academics who believe in questionable things.

[_beastie]

beastie, your apparent notion that others come to their fields without preconceived notions, loyalties, preferences, ideology, tastes, enthusiasms, aversions, commitments, etc., or even that, if they have such, these play no significant role in what they do, is simply naïve.

Interestingly, by sheer chance, I was reading something just last night that argued, in passing, that it was the Marxism of Stephen Jay Gould and some of his fellow "punctuated equilibrium" advocates that smoothed the way for their revision of neo-Darwinism -- a nice illustration of the impact that an extraneous ideological commitment can have (and not always for ill) on a person's area of scientific or scholarly expertise.

Again, I'm left wondering if you read the text to which you responded.

I nowhere stated, or even insinuated, that others come to their fields without preconceived notions, etc. In fact, I specifically mentioned that scientists can have biases in comparing that to having certain KNOWLEDGE.

I'll repeat myself, although others are already addressing your strawman. Having sure knowledge, due to a method outside logic or science, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is far different from scholars dealing with normal biases towards or against various theories.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't see a substantial difference.

Nor have I constructed a straw man.

This is probably enough.

[_beastie]

I don't see a substantial difference.

Nor have I constructed a straw man.

This is probably enough.

Oh, I bet if you try real hard, you can see the difference. I'll help you with an example.

Two scientists are researching whether or not massive doses of Vitamin C can prevent cancer, scientist A and scientist B.

Scientist A believes that an alien with knowledge far more advanced than our own has communicated telepathically with scientist A, given that scientist sure knowledge that massive doses of Vitamin C can, indeed, prevent cancer. Scientist A believes this with every fiber of his being. He KNOWS that massive doses of Vitamin C can prevent cancer. He KNOWS this and assumes that if research currently does not support that contention, it is due to the flawed nature of the research.

Scientist B has a bias against the theory, based on previous readings, but does not claim any certain KNOWLEDGE on the issue. Scientist B will not automatically assume that research that does not support his bias is flawed, because he claims no certain KNOWLEDGE about the issue to begin with.

Now which scientist's findings are you going to find more reliable before taking massive doses of Vitamin C, with all the attendant risks involved?

[_Morrissey]

I don't see a substantial difference.

Nor have I constructed a straw man.

This is probably enough.

So, in other words, "having sure knowledge, due to a method outside logic or science, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document and normal biases towards or against various theories" are equivalent?

Does this not then imply that a witness of the Book of Mormon is no more or less valid or meaningful than than normal 'irrational' (derived outside logic and science) biases?

This will certainly be news to the brethren and the Mormon faithful who routinely claim privileged status for their truth claims.

If one wants to claim that they are not equivalent and that a spiritual witness is inherently more valid than normal human biases, then it appears to me that there is a material difference between the two, with implications for scientific/rational inquiry, as Beastie claims.

You cannot have it both ways.

As for the general point, it is entirely possible that a 'normal' human bias is just as intractable as a bias informed by decades of indoctrination in absolutist truth claims. Intelligent, reasonable people are perfectly capable of holding intractable irrational beliefs of a wide variety of forms.

[_BishopRic]

Now which scientist's findings are you going to find more reliable before taking massive doses of Vitamin C, with all the attendant risks involved?

Beyond this point is that of the human ego. One who is invested, emotionally, financially, and egoically, will do all he can to "prove" his theory is correct. This is often done completely unconsciously.

This happens often in medical science, and I can't imagine would be any less when it comes to matters of faith.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bishopric: You've pretty much made my point. Ego, prejudice, ideology -- these occur in archaeology, medicine, even symbolic logic. Humans aren't purely rational and purely passive thinking machines, whether they're religious or not.

Beastie: You can always construct reductio ad absurdum examples, but, in principle, there's no stark difference between ideological predispositions of various kinds, and scientists A and B still have to do conventional biochemistry, whatever their predispositions may be and whatever the origin of those predispositions may be.

So, in other words, "having sure knowledge, due to a method outside logic or science, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document and normal biases towards or against various theories" are equivalent?

I didn't say that. But they're functionally comparable, along a spectrum of strength and effect with no clear breaks.

Does this not then imply that a witness of the Book of Mormon is no more or less valid or meaningful than than normal 'irrational' (derived outside logic and science) biases?

See above.

This will certainly be news to the brethren and the Mormon faithful who routinely claim privileged status for their truth claims.

See above.

If one wants to claim that they are not equivalent and that a spiritual witness is inherently more valid than normal human biases, then it appears to me that there is a material difference between the two, with implications for scientific/rational inquiry, as Beastie claims.

Sigh. See above.

You cannot have it both ways.

See above.

As for the general point, it is entirely possible that a 'normal' human bias is just as intractable as a bias informed by decades of indoctrination in absolutist truth claims. Intelligent, reasonable people are perfectly capable of holding intractable irrational beliefs of a wide variety of forms.

Not only capable of it, but inevitably disposed to it. And atheists aren't exempt.

[_BishopRic]

Bishopric: You've pretty much made my point. Ego, prejudice, ideology -- these occur in archaeology, medicine, even symbolic logic. Humans aren't purely rational and purely passive thinking machines, whether they're religious or not.

Yes, but I see a difference when much is invested. I can speak best for medical research. Unfortunately, the almighty dollar pays for most research, and that dollar is usually earned by companies selling a product. So through the years, medical associations and institutions have had to establish strict guidelines for double-blind studies, etc., and there are medical researchers that do a very good job staying off the payrolls of pharmaceutical companies...and their research is much more respected than that of the company funded reports.

I'm no expert on the scientific side for archaeology, etc., but it seems that when one is invested (a convicted believer) in any one faith, their results must be considered suspiciously biased.