117 replies to this topic

[volgadon]

Quote

The problem is that "science" and "religion" hadn't even been defined in the modern sense when many supposed conflicts between the two took place.

It is only from our modern vantage point that we can separate what is 'rational' in seventeenth-century science from what is not. We must not allow this wisdom after the event to make us condescending about beliefs held by men like Bacon, Boyle and Newton. Only in the course of the century did the laws of nature harden and congeal; meanwhile scientists were of all men the most anxious to demonstrate that science proves the existence of God.
-Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down, pg. 89-90.

Protestant scholarship exposed many Catholic superstitions, and popularized the vernacular Bible. Similarly, protestant study of the prophetical books of the Bible was intended to put the science of prophecy on a rational basis. Other prophecies, unless positively assisted by devils, always fooled those who trusted them: Birnam wood did come to Dunsinane in a most unfair manner. The invention of printing, by putting prophecies on permanent record, perhaps helped to expose their ambiguities and fallacies. The feeling of freedom which reliance on such prophecies had given was illusory. But the Bible, if properly understood, really would liberate men from destiny, from predestination. By understanding and cooperating with God's purposes men believed they could escape from the blind forces which seemed to rule their world, from time itself; they could become free. It was in a scientific spirit that scholars approached Biblical prophecy. It was the job of mathematicians and chronologers, like Napier, Brightman, Mede, Ussher and Newton. Such men believed in the possibility of establishing a science of prophecy, just as Hobbes believed in the possibility of establishing a science of politics. Both hopes proved unrealizable: neither is therefore to be despised.
-Ibid, p. 92.

[mfbukowski]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 23 July 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Robert said:
Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic religion, and remains untouched by Stenger.  I am astonished that you don't know that.  Science and Mormonism are entirely compatible.  Always have been.  Mormonism is monistic and posits an entirely natural universe with natural beings called "gods.".

Kerry notes:
I must confess, this is the very first time I have ever heard someone say Mormonism is entirely naturalistic with no supernatural in it, and that the gods are actually just natural beings. I sincerely don't even know how to respond. I think I am going to go do some more reading since obviously I actually no longer know much of anything about anything now.

Just for the record I agree

[mfbukowski]

The view Kerry is that all these things are in principle natural principles that we just don't understand.  Imagine our present science to be like the science of the 12th century and you were a believer in "science".

You would believe that lead can be turned into gold and if we told you it is possible to send voices though the air, you would be just as skeptical as you  are now about flying bodies.

What is important is that what we call "faith" is more faith in what science will someday discover than in its present state- you seem to believe that there are no other discoveries to be made and all phenomena we experience can NOW be explained scientifically

That is patently ridiculous.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

mfbukowski, on 23 July 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

The view Kerry is that all these things are in principle natural principles that we just don't understand.  Imagine our present science to be like the science of the 12th century and you were a believer in "science".

You would believe that lead can be turned into gold and if we told you it is possible to send voices though the air, you would be just as skeptical as you  are now about flying bodies.

What is important is that what we call "faith" is more faith in what science will someday discover than in its present state- you seem to believe that there are no other discoveries to be made and all phenomena we experience can NOW be explained scientifically

That is patently ridiculous.

No ,no, there is MUCH left to learn. I am honestly just trying to read and fathom updating my science understanding and I am finding it is NOT easy as I thought it would be. I am trying to always remain open to other views to see if I learn anything, and unfortunately I learn way too much - GRIN! And then half of what I learn, I learn I shouldn't have learned, so I gotta keep learning in order to unlearn.

[volgadon]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 21 July 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

You miss the point of course. It is scientific medicine the religions are spreading, not prayers of faith. Science is being used when medicine is used, not religion. Religion says pray in faith and believe and you will be healed. Science has experimented, tested, found, and chemically combined various substances in order to come up with medicines that work through testing. THIS is what is being spread by the missionaries, pure science.

I humbly submit that you have missed the point. Barker's, and by extension, your claim, would have it that faith and science are intrinsic enemies. What the Torrances and many others show is that faith has often led to the spread of science. Do you know how many wives and children Dr. Torrance buried? It was his faith in God which led Dr. Torrance to dedicate his life to improving the health and lives of Galileans. Science, that is, modern medicine, was his tool, but faith was the motivator. Dan Barker will not share such stories in his cheap harangues, he'll only use blighted idiots like the parents of the 11 year old girl, then proclaim science's victory over faith.
Dan Barker is serving you pablum.

[volgadon]

Kerry, do you consider exorcisms an indication of religion's "medieval" mindset?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 23 July 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Which is something I happily address in the post I linked to.

I read your post and commented.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

volgadon, on 23 July 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Kerry, do you consider exorcisms an indication of religion's "medieval" mindset?

Do we have actual demonstrable proof that demons even exist? We suspect many such paroxyisms of spasms were created naturally rather than demons, and these days with our scientific knowledge of medicine and foods, we can "heal" people without the religious process of throwing out demons. Does anyone within the last 50 years honestly have demonstrable proof that demons are still around and being exorcised? I am honestly just curious is all.

[volgadon]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Do we have actual demonstrable proof that demons even exist? We suspect many such paroxyisms of spasms were created naturally rather than demons, and these days with our scientific knowledge of medicine and foods, we can "heal" people without the religious process of throwing out demons. Does anyone within the last 50 years honestly have demonstrable proof that demons are still around and being exorcised? I am honestly just curious is all.

That doesn't actually answer my question. It is not a gotcha, but I am going somewhere with this.

[mfbukowski]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 23 July 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

No ,no, there is MUCH left to learn. I am honestly just trying to read and fathom updating my science understanding and I am finding it is NOT easy as I thought it would be. I am trying to always remain open to other views to see if I learn anything, and unfortunately I learn way too much - GRIN! And then half of what I learn, I learn I shouldn't have learned, so I gotta keep learning in order to unlearn.

I apologize for being impatient- I have been thinking this way philosophically for 40 years and been a member 30 years.   I cannot conceive of anyone understanding Mormonism in any way other than the way I understand it, and yet I am one of only a few I know of who see it the way I do.

It literally would not make any sense to me to think of it as many here see it.  Yet there are a few of us who seem to agree with this postmodernistic view if that is what you want to call it.

I really need to learn that really understanding someone else's paradigm takes time.

[Robert F. Smith]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 23 July 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

Mr. Shirts might be interested in the opening post of my old thread (that I really need to get back to when I have some time): Towards Naturalistic Deities.

I have to say, the infinity of eternal self-existing Intelligences embodied in corporeal form within an uncreated universe is what I love most about Mormonism. Joseph's so-called "Nauvoo theology" restores the infinite dignity and worth to humanity (both male and female) that was lost to so many normative religions. I heartily agree with pretty much everything Robert F. Smith and mfbukowski have said in this thread.

Thank you for calling our attention to that stimulating discussion.  Lengthy but well worth the time.

I have to say again how much I appreciate your grasp of these concepts and your ability to express them so well.  The material you already have on naturalistic gods there should constitute another chapter in that book you should be putting together.  Submit it to Salt Press in Salem, Oregon.  They publish serious Mormon thinking, and I think that they'll love your stuff.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

volgadon, on 23 July 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

I humbly submit that you have missed the point. Barker's, and by extension, your claim, would have it that faith and science are intrinsic enemies. What the Torrances and many others show is that faith has often led to the spread of science. Do you know how many wives and children Dr. Torrance buried? It was his faith in God which led Dr. Torrance to dedicate his life to improving the health and lives of Galileans. Science, that is, modern medicine, was his tool, but faith was the motivator. Dan Barker will not share such stories in his cheap harangues, he'll only use blighted idiots like the parents of the 11 year old girl, then proclaim science's victory over faith.
Dan Barker is serving you pablum.

Perhaps I have missed the point. The other point is that had they tried to get medical help, they would have at least been doing something positive instead of sitting on their hands having faith doing nothing. It just IRKS me no end when people do that is all.

[calmoriah]

Quote

It just IRKS me no end when people do that is all.

Tell me abut it.  I have family who are now experiencing some of the same disorder I have.  I start to tell them of stuff that can help them and they just say "well, the doctor has told me this and I really don't want to rely on anything else that hasn't been tested" and that is that.  Thing is I've tested the stuff I recommend plus I am hooked into a group of similar sufferers who have tested stuff, but that is not "officially" tested in their views so they are not even interested in hearing about anything "alternative" even when the alternative is firmly based in science, approved by doctors, just not gone the pharmaceutical route due them not being able to patent the stuff.

[mfbukowski]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 24 July 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Perhaps I have missed the point. The other point is that had they tried to get medical help, they would have at least been doing something positive instead of sitting on their hands having faith doing nothing. It just IRKS me no end when people do that is all.

Agreed- but that is the fault of stupidity not "faith".

Scientists demonstrate faith as much as anybody- hoping for things unseen.  After all, they go to school for years and hope someone will hire them don't they?  

And why did he write the book?  Hoping someone would read it and better yet, buy it!

Edited by mfbukowski, 24 July 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[wenglund]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 24 July 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Perhaps I have missed the point. The other point is that had they tried to get medical help, they would have at least been doing something positive instead of sitting on their hands having faith doing nothing. It just IRKS me no end when people do that is all.

I prefer utilizing all the resources at my disposal, including faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 24 July 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Perhaps I have missed the point. The other point is that had they tried to get medical help, they would have at least been doing something positive instead of sitting on their hands having faith doing nothing. It just IRKS me no end when people do that is all.

You are right, they absolutely should have done something positive instead of "sitting on their hands." If you look at James 2:14-17, the author agrees with you.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

mfbukowski, on 23 July 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

I apologize for being impatient- I have been thinking this way philosophically for 40 years and been a member 30 years.   I cannot conceive of anyone understanding Mormonism in any way other than the way I understand it, and yet I am one of only a few I know of who see it the way I do.

It literally would not make any sense to me to think of it as many here see it.  Yet there are a few of us who seem to agree with this postmodernistic view if that is what you want to call it.

I really need to learn that really understanding someone else's paradigm takes time.

Yes that is a common need of human psychology, that what I understand ought to be understood by everyone else - GRIN!

[mfbukowski]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 24 July 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Yes that is a common need of human psychology, that what I understand ought to be understood by everyone else - GRIN!

Especially for us mouth-shooting-off egotists who are always right!