Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I understand confounding variables. I can tell you that at a outcome ratio of 178 to 1, any interfering or confounding variable that would reverse the outcome would have to be a whopper (or whoppers) indeed.

And by the way I did not (and do not) offer this data as proof.

I offered it for your consideration (something to think about).

Ok I considered it, thanks.

DrW, thanks for making my afternoon go by faster, you have helped. I don't mean that as a bad thing either.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did DrW claim causation? I think he simply pointed out an interesting potential correlation.Forgive me for speaking for DrW, but I seriously doubt that he would argue that this ratio is only explained by religious/ethnic tradition.

He blamed it directly on Church teachings and education, actually. And he didn't account for any winners who believe in God. Do the Jews who won not count?

I understand confounding variables. I can tell you that at a outcome ratio of 178 to 1, any interfering or confounding variable that would reverse the outcome would have to be a whopper (or whoppers) indeed.And by the way I did not (and do not) offer this data as proof.I offered it for your consideration (something to think about).

It gave me something to think about. Mostly, I thought about how this example is supposed to mean anything in the discussion. I also thought about how many of the folks I talk to online who claim to be the most rational thinkers demonstrate otherwise on a semi-consistent basis. Just like the rest of us humans.

Wade,You make good points about inductive reasoning which certainly has its value. However I, as one who firmly believes in God, must concede that any conclusions I may reach about God's existence or nature through inductive reasoning are very different from those conclusions reached regarding material, or scientific matters.The difference is, that in many cases we get the opportunity to test and demonstrate the validity of our scientific inductive reasoning. For example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. He posited a theory based on inductive reasoning and then made a prediction about how this theory would explain planetary movement and indicated that an upcoming cosmic event would either support, or discredit his theory. (forgive me.... i can't remember the planet at the moment) In any case, what he predicted, happened. Of course you are correct, there are many parts of science that are more in the realm of faith because they are non reproducable and purely inductive -- non-demonstrable theories.IMO, one may use inductive reasoning to conclude that there is a God. However, there is not a way to demonstrate the validity of this reasoning. No tests. No predictions that can be observed. To me, that makes a belief in God quite special. It really is a HOPE for something greater and better. It is faith.Seth

There is faith in scientific theory as well, however. The fact that people who think science is the paragon of all truth take offense at my assertion goes to show how much they value faith.

[ttribe]

I understand confounding variables. I can tell you that at a outcome ratio of 178 to 1, any interfering or confounding variable that would reverse the outcome would have to be a whopper (or whoppers) indeed.

And by the way I did not (and do not) offer this data as proof.

I offered it for your consideration (something to think about).

So...of these 178 "identified" Jews, how many of them identified themselves as such culturally only versus religiously as well?

[LifeOnaPlate]

So...of these 178 "identified" Jews, how many of them identified themselves as such culturally only versus religiously as well?

Clearly all of them have lost faith in God (like the Mormon winner and DrW).

[DrW]

"Could get you killed in Islam."

This is another good example of the simplistic arguments you are making in general. Islam isn't a place. Islam isn't a singular phenomena without internal differences. There are some Islamic folks who would kill you for "avowing" atheism, Christianity, or whatever else. Do you think this is a widespread reaction? What is your source of information on this?

Again, this seems like a terribly pieced together concept. As I have argued above.

We would have to find a meaningful outline of "magical thinking behavior patterns."

Who was this winner?

Further, what on earth does Nobel Prize winning have to do with the existence of God? How many Nobel Prize winners have believed in God? This would be an important variable.

Please re-read the post. You will find that I made no reference whatsoever to belief in God as an impediment to Nobel Prizes.

And I stand by the comment on the principle of "death to apostates" in Islam. I have lived and worked in Islamic countries on and off for long periods of time over many years. In this case the term â??Islamâ? would be analogous to (or as compared to) â??Christendomâ?.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please re-read the post. You will find that I made no reference whatsoever to belief in God as an impediment to Nobel Prizes.

Perhaps you could enlighten us to what purpose your illistration was about?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Please re-read the post. You will find that I made no reference whatsoever to belief in God as an impediment to Nobel Prizes.

OK, what did you mean by your example, then?

And I stand by the comment on the principle of "death to apostates" in Islam. I have lived and worked in Islamic countries on and off for long periods of time over many years. In this case the term “Islam” would be analogous to (or as compared to) “Christendom”.

I agree it is pretty analogous.

And some Christians believe some are elected to salvation and the rest are damned. Some believe in the protestant work ethic and others in a leveling liberation theology. Some are Republican and some Democrat. Some bow to crosses and others burn crosses. Some believe in an authoritative structure and others believe that each is her own authority.

As there are important differences in Christian belief, where the resulting (or causing?) actions differ, so are there in Islamic approaches. To say the unequivocal Islam view is "death to apostates" is an incorrect stereotype.

Your picture of a singular Christianity or Islam is too simplistic. It is misleading. I disagree with it.

[Doctor Steuss]

If those whom you are addressing tell you that they find a particular thing to be a pejorative, wouldnâ??t the decent thing be to stop using it?

Seems rather poopish to insist on using a term as a descriptor that those whom youâ??re dialoguing with find to be insulting.

It just seems rather silly to me that this thread even needs to exist (and is still growing).

<---- Thinks funeral potatoes are magically delicious.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

<---- Thinks funeral potatoes are magically delicious.

Absolutly awsome!!!!

[LifeOnaPlate]

If those whom you are addressing tell you that they find a particular thing to be a pejorative, wouldnâ??t the decent thing be to stop using it?

Seems rather poopish to insist on using a term as a descriptor that those whom youâ??re dialoguing with find to be insulting.

It just seems rather silly to me that this thread even needs to exist (and is still growing).

<---- Thinks funeral potatoes are magically delicious.

Thanks for your comments, but the price of admission to this conversation is the possession of a Nobel Prize.

[ttribe]

If those whom you are addressing tell you that they find a particular thing to be a pejorative, wouldnâ??t the decent thing be to stop using it?

Seems rather poopish to insist on using a term as a descriptor that those whom youâ??re dialoguing with find to be insulting.

It just seems rather silly to me that this thread even needs to exist (and is still growing).

<---- Thinks funeral potatoes are magically delicious.

Excellent. Thank you.

[Doctor Steuss]

Thanks for your comments, but the price of admission to this conversation is the possession of a Nobel Prize.

I won a Pinewood Derby once.

How many Jews have done that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I won a Pinewood Derby once.

How many Jews have done that?

Dude, I am at work, stop, I can't laugh.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I won a Pinewood Derby once.

How many Jews have done that?

Checkmate.

[wenglund]

Wade,

You make good points about inductive reasoning which certainly has its value. However I, as one who firmly believes in God, must concede that any conclusions I may reach about God's existence or nature through inductive reasoning are very different from those conclusions reached regarding material, or scientific matters.

The difference is, that in many cases we get the opportunity to test and demonstrate the validity of our scientific inductive reasoning. For example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. He posited a theory based on inductive reasoning and then made a prediction about how this theory would explain planetary movement and indicated that an upcoming cosmic event would either support, or discredit his theory. (forgive me.... i can't remember the planet at the moment) In any case, what he predicted, happened. Of course you are correct, there are many parts of science that are more in the realm of faith because they are non reproducable and purely inductive -- non-demonstrable theories.

IMO, one may use inductive reasoning to conclude that there is a God. However, there is not a way to demonstrate the validity of this reasoning. No tests. No predictions that can be observed. To me, that makes a belief in God quite special. It really is a HOPE for something greater and better. It is faith. Seth

I am sorry, but there is much in what you just said that is puzzling to me. Are you arguing against using "induction" to describe LDS thinking? Are you confusing induction with deduction when you speak of "validity"? Are you supposing that "induction" and "faith' are mutually exclusive? Are you unaware of the "tests" in Moroni 10 and Alma 32? Are you unaware of the predictabilities implied within the Alma 32 test? Do you understand that there is a broad range of valued and useful applications of inductive reasoning even where conclusions drawn aren't to a hard scientific certainty or predictability--including throughout much of our secular lives?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Williams]

The use of "magic" depends on the context. Lucy Smith had no qualms about using the word, and as has been pointed out, Bushman used it to distinguish Joseph's pre-prophetic practices from his later actions.

But a lot of times the word is thrown about like the word "cult," which is usually meant as a pejorative meaning "a religion I don't like." Likewise, "magic" is often used to suggest "a religious practice I don't like."

[ttribe]

The use of "magic" depends on the context. Lucy Smith had no qualms about using the word, and as has been pointed out, Bushman used it to distinguish Joseph's pre-prophetic practices from his later actions.

There are lots of 19th Century terms which were perfectly acceptable in their day, which have since taken on largely pejorative meanings as we sit here in the 21st Century.

But a lot of times the word is thrown about like the word "cult," which is usually meant as a pejorative meaning "a religion I don't like." Likewise, "magic" is often used to suggest "a religious practice I don't like."

Correct.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm still puzzled at DrW's Nobel Prize discussion.

[wenglund]

I won a Pinewood Derby once.

How many Jews have done that?

Who knows. But, had you won a pork-eating contest, it may be easier to guess.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Doctor Steuss]

The use of "magic" depends on the context. Lucy Smith had no qualms about using the word, and as has been pointed out, Bushman used it to distinguish Joseph's pre-prophetic practices from his later actions.

But a lot of times the word is thrown about like the word "cult," which is usually meant as a pejorative meaning "a religion I don't like." Likewise, "magic" is often used to suggest "a religious practice I don't like."

+1

I think there are definitely times that the term â??magicâ? has validity and can be used when discussing things of a religious nature. I really like Everett Fergusonâ??s (Backgrounds of Early Christianity) take. In discussing magic and priesthood (and how one personâ??s magic is often another personâ??s priesthood) he said (paraphrasing) that the main difference between the two, in the context of religion, is the source. If the power is purportedly being derived from the individual, or â??thing,â? then itâ??s magic. If the power is purportedly being derived from outside the individual, or â??thingâ? by some greater power or force (likely G-d), then the term magic likely has no place.

Iâ??m sure terms such as â??magical thinkingâ? have their place, and can be used without ruffling any feathers in secular neighborhoods (might even get a few high-fives out of its use), but methinks itâ??s pretty un-kosher to wield this rhetoric hammer in the company of believers. Especially after they make repeated objections.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Steuss, you are talking the sort of jive I've been laying down. Smooth.

[wenglund]

The use of "magic" depends on the context. Lucy Smith had no qualms about using the word, and as has been pointed out, Bushman used it to distinguish Joseph's pre-prophetic practices from his later actions.

But a lot of times the word is thrown about like the word "cult," which is usually meant as a pejorative meaning "a religion I don't like." Likewise, "magic" is often used to suggest "a religious practice I don't like."

Good point, John. The word "cult" is an excellent analogy. In secular terms and in the past, though, the word "negro" and its cognates were widely used among even those to whom the word applied, but in today's common venacular, its tends to carry pejorative baggage that ought reasonably be avoided, and tends to be limited in its use to the deeply prejudices or certain crass black entertainers or historians quoting people from the past.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

I am sorry, but there is much in what you just said that is puzzling to me. Are you arguing against using "induction" to describe LDS thinking?

No

Are you confusing induction with deduction when you speak of "validity"? Are you supposing that "induction" and "faith' are mutually exclusive?

No. But conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning regarding faith claims differ from those regarding scientific or materialistic claims.

Are you unaware of the "tests" in Moroni 10 and Alma 32? Are you unaware of the predictabilities implied within the Alma 32 test?

I am aware of such tests and i find great value in them. However, they are tests which are only apparent to the individual. You can't use these tests to demonstrate the existence of God to anyone but yourself.

Do you understand that there is a broad range of valued and useful applications of inductive reasoning even where conclusions drawn aren't to a hard scientific certainty or predictability--including throughout much of our secular lives?

Wade my friend, I am actually agreeing with you. I draw conclusions about God and faith all of the time based on inductive reasoning. I am simply making a distinction about the demostrability of these conclusions to others

[wenglund]

No

No. But conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning regarding faith claims differ from those regarding scientific or materialistic claims.

I am aware of such tests and i find great value in them. However, they are tests which are only apparent to the individual. You can't use these tests to demonstrate the existence of God to anyone but yourself.

Wade my friend, I am actually agreeing with you. I draw conclusions about God and faith all of the time based on inductive reasoning. I am simply making a distinction about the demostrability of these conclusions to others

I see. You are distinguishing between conclusions arrayed towards the objective end of the inductive spectrum as differentiated from those that are arrayed more towards the subjective end of the inductive spectrum.

I can accept that. I was already aware of the obvious distinction prior to you mentioning it, so I was a bit puzzled what relevance it has to the point that I was making or why you thought to bring it up when you did, but at least we are in agreement about the distinction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TheLiberal]

I wonder which word has been used to "poison the well" more often,

"magic"

or;

"anti-Mormon"?

I wager the term "anti-Mormon" could be dropped altogether without substituting anything in its place and nothing of value would be lost. To offer but one example, consider this thread. The author, Pahoran, makes a complaint worth hearing. There is probably some truth to his charge that terms like "magic" often are thrown out to stonewall a discussion and contribute little value. But, he takes the unnecessary and counterproductive extra step to draw this out as if it were an "anti-Mormon" conspiracy. This is what "anti-Mormons" do, everyone from the notable historian Michael Quinn to his latest online run-in from the Evangelical Christian community. Anti-Mormons are infamous for this kind of low, underhanded behavior. They can't be trusted. They can't be taken seriously...

It's an "anti-Mormon tactic" that anyone who knows anything is well familiar with.