Firstly, congratulations on doing some real missionary work. But this reads like you’ve cherry picked things from his response. I’d be interested in reading his full response. I’d also be interested in the full text of the email you sent, but will understand if that’s something you want kept private.
I note he introduces the word cult into your exchange about The Book of Mormon. And despite having several opportunities to do so, has decided The Book of Mormon isn’t worth his time. Might be worth a follow up to understand why he doesn’t feel it worth his time. I note he’s also, gently and politely, telling you not to send him another one.
I would also note that he isn’t your brother in Christ, despite your assertion that he is. He’s somebody that needs to be converted to Mormonism before that can be asserted. Until then you will always harbour the notion that he’s not in the correct religion. He’s maybe a distant cousin in Christ, but it’s awkward at family gatherings.
P.S. Did you gain his permission to make public his private communication with you?
Bump for MG
I do not feel compelled to say anything beyond what I have already said in regards to my communication with Dr. Tour.
Except to say that my original point stands. Belief in Christ isn't incompatible with scientific exploration and knowledge.
I do not feel compelled to say anything beyond what I have already said in regards to my communication with Dr. Tour.
Except to say that my original point stands. Belief in Christ isn't incompatible with scientific exploration and knowledge.
James Tour is only one example of that fact.
Regards,
MG
So you’ve published his private communication with you without asking his permission to do so. And you’ve cherry picked his comments. Got it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I do not feel compelled to say anything beyond what I have already said in regards to my communication with Dr. Tour.
Except to say that my original point stands. Belief in Christ isn't incompatible with scientific exploration and knowledge.
James Tour is only one example of that fact.
Regards,
MG
So you’ve published his private communication with you without asking his permission to do so. And you’ve cherry picked his comments. Got it.
Also, as you noted previously, James Tour is absolutely NOT an example of "belief in Christ" being compatible "with scientific exploration and knowledge":
Although he ends e-mails with 'God bless', he says that, apart from a habit of praying for divine guidance, he feels that religion plays no part in his scientific work."
I do not feel compelled to say anything beyond what I have already said in regards to my communication with Dr. Tour.
Except to say that my original point stands. Belief in Christ isn't incompatible with scientific exploration and knowledge.
James Tour is only one example of that fact.
Regards,
MG
So how would one test your Christ hypothesis in a scientific way? (FTR, they are incompatible--your God is getting squeezed out of necessity by the ever shrinking gaps in scientific understanding.)
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
I do not feel compelled to say anything beyond what I have already said in regards to my communication with Dr. Tour.
Except to say that my original point stands. Belief in Christ isn't incompatible with scientific exploration and knowledge.
James Tour is only one example of that fact.
Regards,
MG
So how would one test your Christ hypothesis in a scientific way? (FTR, they are incompatible--your God is getting squeezed out of necessity by the ever shrinking gaps in scientific understanding.)
The ability to reframe every outcome as ‘God’s Will’ is the magic double sided coin that religious have up their sleeve. So run a scientific test on, say, people whose appendix bursts. One group receives nothing but Priesthood Blessings and Prayers from an Apostle. The other group receives proper medical attention. Then compare the survival rates. When the data shows the obvious, the Apostle would simply reframe it as his group having the faith to not be healed. See how that works? Every outcome can be portrayed (in their eyes) to confirm their existing choice of belief. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, will dent that unshakable conditioning. Because it’s not they they believe the Church is true, it’s that the individual believer cannot accept that they could possibly believe something that isn’t true.
Some people, for various reasons, can escape that orbit. Especially when they are younger and less conditioned. It’s why so much emphasis is placed on getting young people into a Church environment of coercive control, missions.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I do not feel compelled to say anything beyond what I have already said in regards to my communication with Dr. Tour.
Except to say that my original point stands. Belief in Christ isn't incompatible with scientific exploration and knowledge.
James Tour is only one example of that fact.
Regards,
MG
So how would one test your Christ hypothesis in a scientific way? (FTR, they are incompatible--your God is getting squeezed out of necessity by the ever shrinking gaps in scientific understanding.)
Where is the evidence that God is being squeezed out through scientific investigation? If you listen to the James Tour presentation I referred you to at Harvard you will hear him answer a student's question that completely demolishes your weak assertion.
So how would one test your Christ hypothesis in a scientific way? (FTR, they are incompatible--your God is getting squeezed out of necessity by the ever shrinking gaps in scientific understanding.)
Where is the evidence that God is being squeezed out through scientific investigation? If you listen to the James Tour presentation I referred you to at Harvard you will hear him answer a student's question that completely demolishes your weak assertion.
You simply want to take God out of the picture.
Regards,
MG
God was only put into the picture by goat-herders trying to explain the world and the universe 4,000 years ago. I'll take science and reason any day over the persistent myths of goat-herders.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Where is the evidence that God is being squeezed out through scientific investigation? If you listen to the James Tour presentation I referred you to at Harvard you will hear him answer a student's question that completely demolishes your weak assertion.
You simply want to take God out of the picture.
Regards,
MG
God was only put into the picture by goat-herders trying to explain the world and the universe 4,000 years ago. I'll take science and reason any day over the persistent myths of goat-herders.
You might enjoy a book I'm reading right now. It's called, "The Faith Instinct", "How Religion Evolved and Why It Matters".
Nicholas Wade's "The Faith Instinct" begins promisingly but fizzles out, its argument unproven. It is lucidly written and contains several thought-provoking passages, but it is also padded with whole sections of pop-science banalities.
Someone who has the book and is reading it can presumably provide some specifics from the book that are relevant to the topic and which are compelling arguments, but which aren’t available via a quick AI or Google search…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
