Throwing science under the bus

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

You are incorrect about the Mormons.

See http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Education_Scholarship_and_Mormonism.html

See http://www.fruitsofmormonism.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

See http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/education/science_scientists.htm

See The Faith of a Scientist by Henry Eyring

See Article of Faith #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Ceeboo]

Merry Christmas to all!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[SilverKnight]

When they are finally forced by to admit that they were wrong (or to claim that God had somehow changed his unchanging mind regarding a specific matter) the credibility of the religion is damaged. Members must now apply an extra dose of rationalization or self-delusion to continue in the belief their leaders really are in contact with an almighty, omnipotent and omniscient being.

I do not share your starkly oversimplified assessment that religion, because it has been wrong on matters of science, and has made mistakes, is a worthless and destructive monolith of stupidity that should be abandoned at earliest convenience. While religious leaders have sometimes held quaint notions on science, that does not invalidate the spiritual wisdom they have shared.

As to any pain caused by acknowledging good done by the Mormon Church, I would say that there is not much pain because, on balance and relative to its resources, there is not much good done. When one looks at the resources of the Church and at how those resources are distributed and expended, one has to conclude that the Mormon Church could do a lot better in the world than it does.

The LDS church is not the March of Dimes. Its expenditures are exactly what one would expect when considering its Mission Statement.

Over my lifetime I have contributed hunderds of thousands of dollars to the Church, and fully supported my three sons on full time missions. I now recognize these actions as mistakes and poor stewardship on my part. So I do not stand blameless in this matter.

Welcome back to the board Dr.W.

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot:

You are incorrect about the Mormons.

See http://www.fairlds.o..._Mormonism.html

See http://www.fruitsofm...01_archive.html

See http://www.lightplan..._scientists.htm

See The Faith of a Scientist by Henry Eyring

See Article of Faith #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Sorry. Not sure what point you wished to make with these references.

(BTW, my daughter gave me the Henry Eyring book you mentioned, which was in fact written by his son. While I do not wish to detract from Eyring's scientific accomplishments, I did not find the book of much interest or value. It appeared to me to be a mainly an exercise in apologetics.)

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

Regardless of your personal assessment of Henry Eyring. That fact remains he was very LDS and a scientist. That LDS are overrepresented in the sciences. That by in large LDS have no problems with science, just as they have no problems with God. In fact we firmly state that there is yet much to learn about the kingdom of God which includes what the sciences contribute to our understandings.

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot:

Regardless of your personal assessment of Henry Eyring. That fact remains he was very LDS and a scientist. That LDS are overrepresented in the sciences. That by in large LDS have no problems with science, just as they have no problems with God. In fact we firmly state that there is yet much to learn about the kingdom of God which includes what the sciences contribute to our understandings.

As I said, I do not wish to detract in any way from accomplishments of Henry Eyring (the scientist). His son (the author) comes accross as an apologist, The book you mentioned seemed (to me at least) to be mainly intended as faith promoting and aimed at LDS audiences. It was of little value as an objective assessment of Eyring's scientific accomplishments or their impact on society.

As to the assertion that the Mormon faith does not stand in conflict with modern science, I strongly disagree. Been there. Done that.

In my relatively long career, I have been advised by both well known scientists who were not Mormons, and Mormon leaders who were not scientists, that I would eventually have to choose between science and my religion. Indeed that time finally came, and I made my choice.

When one looks at the statements of the leaders of the Church related to everything from the literal Genesis, to cosmology, the conflicts are everywhere. As I have stated before on this board, if you believe that there is no conflict between science and the Mormon religion, you need to read more about science, or more about Mormonism, or both.

And I say this with all due respect and a full understanding and recognition that you are formally trained in the sciences.

[FutureTwitBlog]

I feel Semlogo's pain.

Lately whenever there has been any sort of discussion on faith & science, some loud-mouthed fundamentalist blowhard come crashing into the discussion demanding that his way is God's way, and anyone who disagrees is a prophet-denying atheist.

These ogrish spectacles of stupidity are very frustrating for those of us who at least make an effort to harmonize faith with science.

Man, I totally sympathize with you there. I'm going to post my own recent experience with this, but it's too long to post here, so I'll start a new thread.

But, I hear you.

[changed]

In the case of religion, absolute truth is claimed by the religionist at the outset, and mistakes are generally ignored or covered up. If mistakes are ever recognized, acknowledged and corrected, such actions severely damage the credibility of the religion.

Joseph F Smith : That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted

[changed]

1. True religion with faulty science;

2. True science with faulty religion;

3. Faulty religion with faulty science; and

4. True socialism with Droopy's world view.

5. Incompletely understood science and religion...

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[LeSellers]

Joseph F Smith : That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted

[ERayR]

The way I see it is that if they don't harmonize someone is wrong (or lying). You have to give something up and its all a matter of who you believe.

Or perhaps someone doesn't know enough to have a clear understanding of either/or.

[ERayR]

If one goes into the discussion with the belief that science and religion are both wrong from time to time, they can be confident that science will eventually correct its mistakes as new and more reliable evidence becomes available. Furthermore, science will (generally) learn something from the mistakes made and be less likely to make similar mistakes again. Scientists do not claim absolute truth, and reserve the right to continue to question and refine knowledge. Such actions strengthen science.

In the case of religion, absolute truth is claimed by the religionist at the outset, and mistakes are generally ignored or covered up. If mistakes are ever recognized, acknowledged and corrected, such actions severely damage the credibility of the religion.

At least by now we know the earth is not flat. Don't we?

[ERayR]

I appreciate your candor.

I think the problem is that even in our own faith, many people are unwilling to allow prophets and scripture to be wrong, on anything.

I have learned that many devoutly LDS are indeed Sola Scriptura literalists - even though our whole faith was founded on refuting that idea.

I agree but there is still the problem of where we define the perceived errors. That brother is an individual choice.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

There is the Flat Earth Society.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[semlogo]

Abiogenesis is a science?

Who knew?

Regards,

Pahoran

No, that's a good point. It's really a hypothesis, not a field yet, I think. Some scientist can correct me if I'm wrong.

[semlogo]

Not so much a "good catch.

http://search.incredimail.com/?q=Abiogenesis〈=english&source=017104051022105

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-?-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller

[Tarski]

No, that's a good point. It's really a hypothesis, not a field yet, I think. Some scientist can correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe this is correct except that when one considers what kind of chemical or physical processes could have taken place, this creates various sub-problems mostly in organic chemistry that can then be addressed theoretically and in the lab. If one proposes a scenario for abiogenesis then aspects of some of the individual steps can be examined, partially tested and criticized in fairly precise chemical and thermodynamic terms. By this process some scenarios may be thrown out, while others remain as possibilities. Some things could also examined by the use of computer models or simulations.

One area of research is that of self-replicating molecules and molecular systems.

In the background we can see this as a bunch of "proofs of concept" which come in handy when some creationist says that some general kind of self organization is impossible.

It is important to understand that the exact steps for actual historical abiogenesis may never be known, but it would important to have shown in some detail one or more possible ways that it could have happened.

This is similar to my being able to show one or more ways that a magic trick could have been done even if I may never know the particular way that the magician chose. At least I will have demonstrated that there need not have been "real magic" involved.

The wiki article is pretty good on this topic.

[wenglund]

Hard-line fundamentalists (whether LDS or Evangelical or Muslim etc) insist that in order to follow the word of God, we must reject certain branches of science as false, possibly satanic. From our many discussions hear at MADB, I have identified the following that fundamentalists insist we reject...

I love the smell of sweeping steriotypes in the morning. It is sooo scientific.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

I love the smell of sweeping steriotypes in the morning. It is sooo scientific.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When we're talking about certain fundamentalists on this board, these stereotypes happen to be true and are based on my interactions with them since I joined this board.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

I really can't address your personal experience. But such contradicts my personal experience as a virtual 40 year member of the Church, but also contradicts the position of many leaders in the Church.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Science_and_Scientists

[Mordecai]

...we're talking about certain fundamentalists on this board

Oh, so this thread is personal. It's not about promoting science but to trash people, as a means to prop yourself up. Sad.

[Jeff K.]

When we're talking about certain fundamentalists on this board, these stereotypes happen to be true and are based on my interactions with them since I joined this board.

So based on your interactions with some people you label as fundamentalists, the list is accurate. Hmmmmm... nope no sweeping stereotypes here. Unless you can, of course provide the definitive book of all fundamentalists and their catagories from which you pulled the information.

In my youth I was beaten by a group of Turkish young men in Europe. Using your hypothesis for making an observation do I state, "when talking about certain Turkish youth in Europe, the stereotypes happen to be true and are based on my interactions with them since I was in Europe at the time.

So Turkish youth are thugs right? Or is that a sweeping characterization of a group of people based on limited exposure?

[Zakuska]

Oh, so this thread is personal. It's not about promoting science but to trash people, as a means to prop yourself up. Sad.

As I said on the C14 thread...

That may even be an understatement with all the preening and straightening of the ruffled feathers and ego stroking by the C14 worshipers with the rash of threads about "labotimized theists vs science."

I have to admit that it has been entertaining watching them throw their "profits" under the bus as junk scientists.

[wenglund]

When we're talking about certain fundamentalists on this board, these stereotypes happen to be true and are based on my interactions with them since I joined this board.

I have no doubt that your sweeping perceptions of the so-called "fundamentalist" here are infallibly precise and accurate in every respect. I am sure that if you identify the so-called "fundamentalists" on the board, they will redily agree not only that they are fundamentalists, but that, as you claim, they completely reject all the sciences you have listed. There is no chance that you may be proping up straw men. After all, you are a scientist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ElfLord]

I have no doubt that your sweeping perceptions of the so-called "fundamentalist" here are infallibly precise and accurate in every respect. I am sure that if you identify the so-called "fundamentalists" on the board, they will redily agree not only that they are fundamentalists, but that, as you claim, they completely reject all the sciences you have listed. There is no chance that you may be proping up straw men. After all, you are a scientist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Give him a break Wade... he may be a scientist but he's also a Mormon which gives him a genetically inbreed over inflated persecution complex.