defensive ploys, religion, science

[_Morley]

My personal favorite:
4. “Kuhn therefore Nephi”.

It usually results from a misuse and misunderstanding of both Kuhn's book and the history/nature of science.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I kinda agree. Kinda.
I wish you would start a new thread explaining what a totally nonfundamentalist religion looks like. What exactly are we left with? Should I be thinking John Haught or maybe Shelby Spong?
You're the man to do it, so I wish you really would start a new thread.

I've thought about doing it. Honestly, the real problem is that there are many ways of being a non-fundamentalist. It's similar to the problem of being a good scientist, there are many ways of doing that as well. By that I mean a sociologist and a physicist can both be good scientists, but there's actually not much overlap in how they go about doing science. Hopefully, I can give it shot sometime soon.

[_Tarski]

It is a very objective fact, I agree.

Then you agree that there is a such a thing as objectivity and you shouldn't have contradicted me on this point. Some people seem to think that since there is no absolute objectivity, religious notions somehow get some immunity from the scrutiny of science.
In fact, the possibility of ordinary objectivity of the sort we agree on already gives problems in varying degrees to many religious notions. They are rendered extremely unlikely and to that extent irrational to believe.

[_Simon Belmont]

Then you agree that there is a such a thing as objectivity and you shouldn't have contradicted me on this point.

By "very" objective but not "absolutely" objective, I only mean that there is a measurement of objectivity in your example of the heart pumping blood. OBEs have a measurement of objectivity, too, as does spiritual experience.

Some people seem to think that since there is no absolute objectivity, religious notions somehow get some immunity from the scrutiny of science.

The scrutiny of science is important, but I think that science should not be immune from the scrutiny of religion, or of the things we do not know (which towers over the things we think we know).

[_Tarski]

The scrutiny of science is important, but I think that science should not be immune from the scrutiny of religion, or of the things we do not know (which towers over the things we think we know).

You want the things we don't know to scrutinize science? Huh?

[_Ren]

Upon reading one of my posts a while back - Droopy once commented that "the post-modernist mind was a disturbing thing to behold".

...is he - at the very least - equally horrified by reading any of Simon's posts I wonder...?

Or is it that he's OK with Simon's continual fog of uncertainty as long as - out of all the reams of potentially unreliable information constrantly streaming into his senses - Simon reliably picks Mormonism as his 'best candidate' for modelling reality...?!

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is a very old and very dumb argument, Simon, and I don't know why you're still making it. This, in particular, was a real forehead-slapper:

The scrutiny of science is important, but I think that science should not be immune from the scrutiny of religion, or of the things we do not know (which towers over the things we think we know).

I bet you believe on some level that your "knowledge" of the "truth" of the LDS Church is more or less the same as your knowledge of scientific facts. I.e., that your certainty regarding either is more or less the same. If that's the case, though, I'm sure you have to ask yourself why you are donating 10% of your income, giving up all kinds of indulgences, opening yourself up to criticism and (as you would put it) "bigotry," giving up boatloads of your free time, and associating yourself with all manner of nastiness (polygamy/polyandry, MMM, the Glen Pace stuff, the Book of Abraham, etc.), all for something that is every bit as "uncertain" and "unknowable" as scientific discovery/fact.

[_Ren]

Simon,

You - at the very least Know (with a capital K) that 'You' exist...? Right...?

That question may seem like I'm baiting / mocking, but I'm honestly not.
I've just never seen somebody retreat so consistently - and so gleefully - towards full-blown Solipsism before...

[_beefcalf]

Science is always changing. It wasn't until Newton that we even understood the concept of Gravity. It wasn't until the early 1800s that the Atom was even theorized about! What will change next -- what will change in the next 50 years? The next 100? Why accept modern science when it will just change later?

Down in Shipping/Receiving:

Tarski: Hey, boss, they just dropped off this package. Whaddya want me to do with it?

Simon: Uh... how much does it weigh?

Tarski, bouncing it up and down in his hand, looking thoughtful: Say... two pounds.

Simon: Ok, Lemme just enter it into the inventory system... "...two pounds"


Later...

Simon: Tarski, that package that came in earlier... the customer is calling about it. How much does it weigh again?

Tarski, grabbing the package and the postal scale: Lessee here.... two pounds, five ounces.

Simon: Hmmm... ok then... thanks.


Later...

Simon: Tarski, that customer called again. They say that package contains a small ingot of pure gold. He wants to know exactly how much it weighs.

Tarski, heading back to use the trade scale: Oh, ok, no problem. Hmmm... looks like 36.993 ounces.

Simon: Ok, thanks.


Later...

Simon: Tarski, you're fired.

Tarski: Um, really? Why?

Simon: When I asked you earlier how much that package weighed, you gave me three different answers. It's like you don't even know how to do your job. I can't keep you employed here if you don't even know how to weigh things. Beat it.

[_Simon Belmont]

I bet you believe on some level that your "knowledge" of the "truth" of the LDS Church is more or less the same as your knowledge of scientific facts. I.e., that your certainty regarding either is more or less the same.

I don't claim to know anything. I believe in the gospel of the CoJCoLDS, and I have faith that Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw.

But you're right, I believe and have faith in scientific discoveries, too. For example, I have faith that as I plant my feet on the ground, the ground will support my weight.

If that's the case, though, I'm sure you have to ask yourself why you are donating 10% of your income, giving up all kinds of indulgences, opening yourself up to criticism and (as you would put it) "bigotry," giving up boatloads of your free time,

It's really quite simple: I've seen the results of such actions in my life, and I like them. Until they change, the behavior will continue.

and associating yourself with all manner of nastiness (polygamy/polyandry, MMM, the Glen Pace stuff, the Book of Abraham, etc.), all for something that is every bit as "uncertain" and "unknowable" as scientific discovery/fact.

Hindsight is 20/20, right? No organization is immune from a sordid past, and if you dig deep enough, you are sure to find one in any organization.

Simon,

You - at the very least Know (with a capital K) that 'You' exist...? Right...?

Absolutely not. There is no way to know for certain that I exist, or that you exist.

I believe I exist. All available evidence points to me existing. I have faith I exist. I do not know I exist, and neither do you.