Throwing science under the bus

[ElfLord]

Let me address this first...

Yes, to say the least.

Religious Fundamentalism is a freedom and human spirit devouring monster that closes minds, blinds people to reality, and cause immeasurable human suffering.

Fundamentalism flies planes into buildings, stones women, disowns gay children, burns crosses, mutiliates baby girls, and forces preteen girls to marry pedophiles.

The one where God slaughters innocent children, offers up sons as sacrifices, offers up daughters to be raped, etc.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament.

Not once. I shared the Old Testament in all its grisly horror and let the members of the class stumble over themselves in a rush disavow, explain away, water down and rationalize the brutal ugliness of it all.

I think you are flat wrong when you say most LDS are scriptural literalists - most I encounter are very uncomfortable with the barbarity of the bible.

I like the... "wine was watered down". Joseph Smith drank Root Beer, Approach. Why is it so hard for fundamentalists to even imaging that our leaders may just have had a Human side to them?

[zelder]

Most members I know are uncomfortable with a lot of the Old Testament and avoid reading it for that reason. Indeed, it is a long-standing doctrine that the Bible is correct so far as it is "translated correctly." In other words, the understanding has long been that the Bible contains errors. The extent of those errors is understood differently by different people.

Yes, fundamentalism really does bother me. I don't see the point of faith if you have to throw out objective reality to maintain it. I refuse to do so, which is why my position is nuanced rather than fundamentalist.

I don't really like the bible either and especially the old testement. Modern scriptures add kinks though. The 7,000 year life of the earth is a D&C concept. The earth being in a paradisiacal state and Adam and Eve being immortal are points that are found outside the Bible and present logical gaps that (to me) we either have to reject or accept.

edit-----------------

Some of this stuff really does not matter much. I just don't like the idea of Adam and Eve being totaly mythical.

[zelder]

Let me address this first...

Yes, to say the least.

Religious Fundamentalism is a freedom and human spirit devouring monster that closes minds, blinds people to reality, and cause immeasurable human suffering.

Fundamentalism flies planes into buildings, stones women, disowns gay children, burns crosses, mutiliates baby girls, and forces preteen girls to marry pedophiles.

The one where God slaughters innocent children, offers up sons as sacrifices, offers up daughters to be raped, etc.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament.

Not once. I shared the Old Testament in all its grisly horror and let the members of the class stumble over themselves in a rush disavow, explain away, water down and rationalize the brutal ugliness of it all.

I think you are flat wrong when you say most LDS are scriptural literalists - most I encounter are very uncomfortable with the barbarity of the bible.

I see what you mean and I am in complete agreement with you.

[WalkerW]

I like the... "wine was watered down".

If this is in reference to Jesus drinking wine, it is actually quite plausible that he mixed His wine with water considering it was a practice of the Mediterranean culture. Justin Martyr and Cyprian wrote about the mixing of water and wine for the sacraments (Cyprian was actually writing against those who used only water).

Here's a brief rundown.

Nonetheless, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Word of Wisdom like some Mormons would like it to. And I agree with you and the willful ignorance of some. I'm just nitpicking.

[44Foxtrot]

Let me address this first...

Yes, to say the least.

Religious Fundamentalism is a freedom and human spirit devouring monster that closes minds, blinds people to reality, and cause immeasurable human suffering.

Fundamentalism flies planes into buildings, stones women, disowns gay children, burns crosses, mutiliates baby girls, and forces preteen girls to marry pedophiles.

The one where God slaughters innocent children, offers up sons as sacrifices, offers up daughters to be raped, etc.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament.

Not once. I shared the Old Testament in all its grisly horror and let the members of the class stumble over themselves in a rush disavow, explain away, water down and rationalize the brutal ugliness of it all.

I think you are flat wrong when you say most LDS are scriptural literalists - most I encounter are very uncomfortable with the barbarity of the bible.

Heidnischer Krieger,

Bin richtig stolz auf dich. Gut gemacht.

[44Foxtrot]

I can humbly admit that I have no evidence. Its purely based on my (anecdotal) experience. So yes I could be wrong.

Your claim regarding the "extremely" small percentage of scriptural non-literalists in the LDS Church was really a surprise to me, so I went looking for some evidence.

If the recent Pew Research poll shown below is any indication, you may well be more right than wrong.

Can anyone here really argue with the OP assertion that the LDS Church is, by and large, throwing science under the bus?

(Surprised the 'el outa me.)

[SilverKnight]

Heidnischer Krieger,

Bin richtig stolz auf dich. Gut gemacht.

Danke.

[Pahoran]

Heidnischer Krieger,

Bin richtig stolz auf dich. Gut gemacht.

Heathen warrior?

Regards,

Pahoran

[44Foxtrot]

Danke.

Bitte.

[SilverKnight]

Your claim regarding the small percentage of scripturla non literalists in the LDS Church was really a surprise to me, so I went looking for some evidence.

If the recent Pew Research poll shown below is any indication, you may well be more right than wrong.

(Surprised the 'el outa me.)

This poll has been the source of a lot of discussion.

I'd say it more closely measures devotion to the religion one self-identifies with, rather than any belief about revolution.

Remember that, in theory, Christians are supposed to adhere to the bible more closely than mormons do - which makes the results very puzzling.

Something is going on here - because last time I checked; Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants and even Catholics are supposed to believe the biblical creation account with greater literalism than mormons.

I expect that Christian clergy who see this poll would be none too happy at their flock's blatant disregard for God-breathed Scripture.

[Pahoran]

Your claim regarding the "extremely" small percentage of scriptural non-literalists in the LDS Church was really a surprise to me, so I went looking for some evidence.

If the recent Pew Research poll shown below is any indication, you may well be more right than wrong.

Can anyone here really argue with the OP assertion that the LDS Church is, by and large, throwing science under the bus?

Yes.

Regards,

Pahoran (who knows the difference between science and scientism)

[SilverKnight]

Heathen warrior?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes indeed, I am a Viking in my free time.

[44Foxtrot]

This poll has been the source of a lot of discussion.

The poll is only about a year old. Since I haven't been here that long, however, I have not seen the discussion of it and so apologize for bringing up "old news".

Nonetheless, it does seem to be some support for Zelder's "extremely small minority claim" as opposed to my " less than 50%" estimate.

[44Foxtrot]

Yes indeed, I am a Viking in my free time.

Oops.

Sorry if I "outed" you.

[44Foxtrot]

Yes.

Regards,

Pahoran (who knows the difference between science and scientism)

Pahoran,

Do I have it right that you live in NZ?

[SilverKnight]

The poll is only about a year old. Since I haven't been here that long, however, I have not seen the discussion of it and so apologize for bringing up "old news".

Nonetheless, it does seem to be some support for Zelder's "extremely small minority claim" as opposed to my " less than 50%" estimate.

I was a bit baffled myself when I saw it - especially considering that mormons, on average, are much more educated than their religious peers. The percentage of mormons that attend and graduate college is comparable to Jews (traditionally the most educated religious demographic).

[ElfLord]

(Surprised the 'el outa me.)

WOW! JWs are more fundamentalist than Mormons. Good thing semlogo isn't a JW.

[44Foxtrot]

I was a bit baffled myself when I saw it - especially considering that mormons, on average, are much more educated than their religious peers. The percentage of mormons that attend and graduate college is comparable to Jews (traditionally the most educated religious demographic).

Speaking of Mormons, Jews, education, science and bafflement; have a look sometime at the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals from these two religious groups on a per capita basis.

[Ceeboo]

Are y'all sure it's science that is being thrown under the bus in this thread?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[SilverKnight]

Speaking of Mormons, Jews, education, science and bafflement; have a look sometime at the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals from these two religious groups on a per capita basis.

Yes I know.

Jews are a similarly small religious minority yet have an impressive pedigree of Nobel Prizes.

Mormons have a strong cultural emphasis on education, a high % of college grads, yet don't seem to bring home the trophies.

What do I make of it?

Jews are as much a cultural/ethnic identity as they are a religion. And from the data I've seen, American Jews, especially Reform Jews, are not especially devout in the belief or worship. Orthodox Jews are, but they are not the ones winning Nobel Prizes.

I expect that many of those Jewish Nobel prize winners were like Einstein - culturally identified as Jewish, but were essentially agnostic in their religious beliefs.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Do I have it right that you live in NZ?

Yes, you do.

You also have it right if you grasp that the fact that recognising that evolution doesn't explain the existence of life on earth (which indeed it does not and cannot) is not the same as rejecting evolution. Or "throwing science under the bus."

Regards,

Pahoran

[asbestosman]

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:

Mathematics

What? Are you thinking about Pacman and Rob Osborn?

I don't think either one of them suggest that we reject mathematics in order to follow the word of God. Rather they insist there are logical reasons separate from religion to reject certain mathematical principles / theorems about infinity (or probability).

[Jeff K.]

Most members I know are uncomfortable with a lot of the Old Testament and avoid reading it for that reason. Indeed, it is a long-standing doctrine that the Bible is correct so far as it is "translated correctly." In other words, the understanding has long been that the Bible contains errors. The extent of those errors is understood differently by different people.

Yes, fundamentalism really does bother me. I don't see the point of faith if you have to throw out objective reality to maintain it. I refuse to do so, which is why my position is nuanced rather than fundamentalist.

Hmmm... guess you don't know alot of members. The Old Testament is one of my favorite books and I tend to enjoy it more than the Book of Mormon. I don't know of a single member that is uncomfortable with the Old Testament given that we have excellent teachers going through it this year and providing some facinating insights.

That "fundamentalism" bothers you and you tend to label people who have a different point of view as "fundamentalist" I would say that places you in but another of your illogical conundrums. I would suggest that you review the word "fundamental", ie basic elements, and then consider that literalists need not be fundamentalists as you define them. Nor does it immediately follow that literalists reject science, though they may not see or know the immediate scientific explanation or understanding. It reflects a certain comfortable myopia when you don't consider several possibilities regarding the condemnation of different groups.

Hmmm... is such a person the intellectual equivalent of Lerooooy Jenkins? Do you like chicken?

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

[semlogo]

What? Are you thinking about Pacman and Rob Osborn?

I don't think either one of them suggest that we reject mathematics in order to follow the word of God. Rather they insist there are logical reasons separate from religion to reject certain mathematical principles / theorems about infinity (or probability).

It may have been them. I'm thinking specifically about the thread about infinity.