Throwing science under the bus

[semlogo]

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?

Neither of us knows enough members to draw any statistically significant conclusion. Nevertheless, I know many members who avoid the OT like the plague, and not just because of the begats.

[zelder]

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).

Just becasue I have a college degree does not mean I believed everything I was taught. The only difference between people like you and people like me is the level of trust we have in organized education.

[zelder]

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

Peace,

Ceeboo

Indeed.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

Truth is truth wherever we find it.

[semlogo]

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

I wouldn't last five minutes there.

[zelder]

zelder:

Truth is truth wherever we find it.

agreed

[zelder]

I wouldn't last five minutes there.

I've seen some of the things you don't believe (Adam is a myth and the flood didn't happen). i'm interested in knowing what you do believe and what keeps you around? Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be literal? Do you believe Joseph Smiths testimony?

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

I of course can not answer for Semlogo.

So here are my thoughts. Adam & Eve were real live human beings. Talking snakes not so much.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Pre-Adamites

A large but regional flood would seem to meet the view point of Noah far better than a world wide flood covering the tops of the mountains. IE Hugh Nibley's view.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

[semlogo]

I've seen some of the things you don't believe (Adam is a myth and the flood didn't happen).

The story of Adam taught in Genesis is a myth. There may well have been a prophet called Adam. I don't believe he was the first humanoid or created from the dust.

The flood may have happened - on a small scale. It certainly didn't happen as written.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be literal? Do you believe Joseph Smiths testimony?

Yes and yes. The primary basis of my faith has always been in Jesus Christ, followed by a testimony of the BOM.

However, I allow that errors may be present in any text, no matter how sacred. Ultimately if some story or doctrine contradicts empirical reality, I must go with reality. Truth is more important than tradition.

[zelder]

I think it's sort of a miracle that we have have broadly differing views about these things but we all still believe and frankly I guess it doesn't matter. The church has been very wise in ignoring these issues, there is no need to fight it becasue people will still come to church and believe no matter what they think about evolution or natural history.

[SilverKnight]

I think it's sort of a miracle that we have have broadly differing views about these things but we all still believe and frankly I guess it doesn't matter. The church has been very wise in ignoring these issues, there is no need to fight it becasue people will still come to church and believe no matter what they think about evolution or natural history.

Well said.

I love this comment because it will irritate certain critics to no end.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

Amen.

[semlogo]

I think it's sort of a miracle that we have have broadly differing views about these things but we all still believe and frankly I guess it doesn't matter. The church has been very wise in ignoring these issues, there is no need to fight it becasue people will still come to church and believe no matter what they think about evolution or natural history.

Agreed.

[Tarski]

Just becasue I have a college degree does not mean I believed everything I was taught. The only difference between people like you and people like me is the level of trust we have in organized education.

They didn't do a good job if they didn't teach why we know what we know rather than just what we know.

I am a professor and I can tell you this is a problem due in part to time constraints.

[SilverKnight]

They didn't do a good job if they didn't teach why we know what we know rather than just what we know.

I am a professor and I can tell you this is a problem due in part to time constraints.

If it's any consolation, your kind did a bit too good of a job on me - and plunged my comfy magical thinking and cozy belief in the supernatural into utter turmoil.

In fact, it started with the PBS program NOVA.

[zelder]

If it's any consolation, your kind did a bit too good of a job on me - and plunged my comfy magical thinking and cozy belief in the supernatural into utter turmoil.

In fact, it started with the PBS program NOVA.

I used to watch that stuff too. Frankly, it caused a little turmoil in me as well when I was a teenager. I went the other route though.

[StuddleyG]

Did I leave anything out?

common sense?

[FutureTwitBlog]

I used to watch that stuff too. Frankly, it caused a little turmoil in me as well when I was a teenager. I went the other route though.

Which other route was this?

[FutureTwitBlog]

If it's any consolation, your kind did a bit too good of a job on me - and plunged my comfy magical thinking and cozy belief in the supernatural into utter turmoil.

In fact, it started with the PBS program NOVA.

I love NOVA, even if I find their explanations a bit simplistic for certain things. However, I forgive this because they have to appeal to a broad audience, and many people are innumerate.

[StuddleyG]

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.

Brigham Young proved that prophets can be wrong when he repeatedly taught that Adam was God the Father.

[Obiwan]

I accept science and I believe in God. I'm talking, however, about our hardline anti-science posters here at MADB. The ones who think radiocarbon dating is a conspiracy and evolution is bunk, and that pangea separated during the flood.

I question your premise..... I don't see really ANY LDS here or elsewhere that believes such.

Yes, some have posed the questions for discussion, but that doesn't mean that don't believe in the thing.

Me thinks you confused.

[semlogo]

I question your premise..... I don't see really ANY LDS here or elsewhere that believes such.

Yes, some have posed the questions for discussion, but that doesn't mean that don't believe in the thing.

Me thinks you confused.

"Me thinks" you must be new here.

[Obiwan]

"Me thinks" you must be new here.

Nope, been around a lot longer than you. This is not my original incarnation either.

Sometimes questioning, does not mean "believing". Further, even if true, they are an extreme fringe and irrelevant enough to especially need to create a post on. Like a mormon who believes LDS leaders actually taught God had "sex" with Mary. Such is non-existent within mormonism save a couple of nuts that only exist on a couple of message boards.

[semlogo]

Nope, been around a lot longer than you. This is not my original incarnation either.

Sometimes questioning, does not mean "believing". Further, even if true, they are an extreme fringe and irrelevant enough to especially need to create a post on. Like a mormon who believes LDS leaders actually taught God had "sex" with Mary. Such is non-existent within mormonism save a couple of nuts that only exist on a couple of message boards.

If that is so then you know there are plenty of fundamentalists here (both LDS and of other religions) who are throwing science under the bus in the name of their personal beliefs.

[Pahoran]

If that is so then you know there are plenty of fundamentalists here (both LDS and of other religions) who are throwing science under the bus in the name of their personal beliefs.

Sem,

Do you know what "fundamentalist" thought looks like? Let me give you an example: If you don't unquestioningly accept everything the guy in the white coat says on every subject, you are "throwing science under the bus." That's what fundamentalism looks like when it latches on to scientism.

You seem to have this black-and-white, all-or-nothing approach to every little bee you get in your bonnet. You also seem to have a fixation on buses. I saw on another thread where you pontificated that everyone who wasn't a socialist was "throwing the teachings of Jesus under the bus."

The real world is a little different than your fundamentalist paradigm would make it, Sem. All scientists are specialists, and most people are not scientists. To expect non-scientists to understand science the way scientists do is unrealistic; to expect non-scientists to accept the pronouncements of scientists as if they were holy writ is unreasonable; and to expect non-scientists to have no opinions except those that are sanctioned by science is "fundamentalist" thinking.

Are you sure that's what you want us all to adopt?

Regards,

Pahoran