Faith Vs. Science

[volgadon]

Foxtrot, why did the RCC translate Moses the Egyptian's, Avicebron's, Averroes' and Avicenna's works into Latin and use them as textbooks?

[WalkerW]

The same way that universities, national academies and other institutions and their internal and external politics creative an environment supportive of science. Granted, house-arrest don't usually play a role, but suppressing research and preventing publication and good positions certainly do.

You are trying to make the Galileo case into one of faith vs. science, when really it is certain tenents of faith enlisted in the aid of politics and power struggles.

Exactly.

I'm sure this will be ignored again, but for anyone interested see John Tierney, "Social Scientist Sees Bias Within," The New York Times (Feb. 7, 2011) regarding ideological conflicts within scientific communities.

[44Foxtrot]

Foxtrot, why did the RCC translate Moses the Egyptian's, Avicebron's, Averroes' and Avicenna's works into Latin and use them as textbooks?

Volgadon,

As far as a religion is concerned, it seems to me that there are two kinds of science. The first is that with which a specific religion has come to terms The second is that with which a religion has not yet come to terms and sees as dangerous to to its long held beliefs.

My view is that the Catholic Church had become comfortable with the science of say ,Aristotle for example, and did not see it as dangerous. The Church had a (relatively) large number of literate folks looking for something useful to do, so why not? It is not as if the Catholic Church was afraid that this science stuff would get out of control.

In sharp contrast to the attitude of the Church toward heliocentricity in Galileo's day, the Vatican now has an observatory. I understand that it is staffed with some pretty good scientists. Apparently astronomy is no longer seen as dangerous by the Catholic Church.

What is apparently seen as dangerous to the Catholic Church today is the science that shows that AIDS is a result of exposure to the HIV virus and that the use of condoms can substantially reduce the spread of AIDS. Since the Catholic doctrine does not allow for artificial means of birth control, or for reasons known only to the Pope, the Church preaches against the use of condoms in Africa.

It has been reported in the UK that the Catholic Church went so far as to tell its congregates in Africa that condoms had small holes in them that allowed the AIDS virus to pass and were therefore not effective against AIDS. The WHO and other organizations estimats that the lives lost in Africa because of the denial of this science by the Catholic Church ranges into the millions.

There are plenty of "dangerous science" topics for other religions as well, including Mormonism.

One of the problems that Karen Armstrong discusses in The Case for God is the idea that religion only damages and diminishes itself by trying to become acceptable to or aligned with science, or by trying to put its core beliefs on a scientific footing. I agree with her in this. Religion should not only stop trying to validate itself with science, religion should stop trying to impose its unfounded beliefs upon science and scientists.

I understand that this is a long response to your question. But as everyone here seems so interested in motivation, I thought it was appropriate.

[Jeff K.]

Science is a dangerous science topic for Foxtrot. The irony is that the little troll that he is has a religious tenet that if it isn't "his science" it isn't science. Much in the same way he attempted to describe the Vatican. He takes the incredibly naive and uninformed position that somehow the Vatican never changed its scientific standing in its entire existence as to what was or was not accepted when in fact the church vacillated and changed its position as it had time and again. Foxtrot however cannot see that, and then he even erroneously presents the great trial of Galileo as something other than a political play. He embraces the dogmatic mythos without seeking to understand context.

And this is what a scientist does? No real scientist I know does this. Aside from Foxtrots other claims of prejudicial bias, his inability to understand laws that deal with hiring and firing (while claiming to be, lets see, first someone who works in human resources, then someone of consequence in the firm and finally promoting himself to full partner). It appears the troll has no foundation in science, nor in history, and frankly to believe he is of any academic or intellectual consequence in his little panhandle of Florida is to believe in well "Santa Claus" (though that persons story seems more consistent).

During the entire conversation he has been in error, obfuscated the facts, and has yet to answer the CFR placed before him.

[Jeff K.]

What is apparently seen as dangerous to the Catholic Church today is the science that shows that AIDS is a result of exposure to the HIV virus and that the use of condoms can substantially reduce the spread of AIDS. Since the Catholic doctrine does not allow for artificial means of birth control, or for reasons known only to the Pope, the Church preaches against the use of condoms in Africa.

CFR where the Catholic church has stated such.

[44Foxtrot]

I'll be honest. I think it's possible that 44Foxtrot has the scientific background that he claims. It's well known and often remarked among philosophers of science that many, if not the overwhelming majority, of practicing scientists, whatever their other virtues, are philosophically na

[WalkerW]

As for your expressed doubts regarding my veracity, I see them as tantamount to calling me a liar. Unless you have credible evidence that I have not been absolutely straightforward and honest here, you at least owe me the courtesy of the assumption that I am being truthful.

Would you not agree?

I think this is why he said, "I'm halfway inclined to think that we have some sort of troll here." He has elsewhere stated that he has no evidence to doubt your claims. I believe it is the immaturity of your approach to these discussions that makes him slightly suspicious.

I too give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I expect more from you in the case of historical accuracy.

[WalkerW]

...his inability to understand laws that deal with hiring and firing...

Seeing that my major is Organizational Behavior & Human Resource Management, I too find this unsettling.

I actually have a test in Legal Aspects of Employment Practices tomorrow, partially over Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which states,

Discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin is prohibited in private industry, public and private employment agencies, labor unions and joint labor-management training and apprenticeship committees.

[volgadon]

Volgadon,

As far as a religion is concerned, it seems to me that there are two kinds of science. The first is that with which a specific religion has come to terms The second is that with which a religion has not yet come to terms and sees as dangerous to to its long held beliefs.

My view is that the Catholic Church had become comfortable with the science of say ,Aristotle for example, and did not see it as dangerous. The Church had a (relatively) large number of literate folks looking for something useful to do, so why not? It is not as if the Catholic Church was afraid that this science stuff would get out of control.

In sharp contrast to the attitude of the Church toward heliocentricity in Galileo's day, the Vatican now has an observatory. I understand that it is staffed with some pretty good scientists. Apparently astronomy is no longer seen as dangerous by the Catholic Church.

What is apparently seen as dangerous to the Catholic Church today is the science that shows that AIDS is a result of exposure to the HIV virus and that the use of condoms can substantially reduce the spread of AIDS. Since the Catholic doctrine does not allow for artificial means of birth control, or for reasons known only to the Pope, the Church preaches against the use of condoms in Africa.

It has been reported in the UK that the Catholic Church went so far as to tell its congregates in Africa that condoms had small holes in them that allowed the AIDS virus to pass and were therefore not effective against AIDS. The WHO and other organizations estimats that the lives lost in Africa because of the denial of this science by the Catholic Church ranges into the millions.

There are plenty of "dangerous science" topics for other religions as well, including Mormonism.

One of the problems that Karen Armstrong discusses in The Case for God is the idea that religion only damages and diminishes itself by trying to become acceptable to or aligned with science, or by trying to put its core beliefs on a scientific footing. I agree with her in this. Religion should not only stop trying to validate itself with science, religion should stop trying to impose its unfounded beliefs upon science and scientists.

I understand that this is a long response to your question. But as everyone here seems so interested in motivation, I thought it was appropriate.

Long answer, but one that fails to address my question. If the RCC was such a hostile environment for science then why did they bother to translate works (and use them) written by people of different faiths who were even opposed to Christianity? The answer is that these were the leading works of the science of the day. Nobody translated the Canon of Medicine out of boredom. You also underestimate the controversy surrounding Aristotelian philosophy.

[44Foxtrot]

I think this is why he said, "I'm halfway inclined to think that we have some sort of troll here." He has elsewhere stated that he has no evidence to doubt your claims. I believe it is the immaturity of your approach to these discussions that makes him slightly suspicious.

I too give you the benefit of the doubt, which is why I expect more from you in the case of historical accuracy.

Walker,

I am not a historian, and have not formally studied history any more than the next guy. Regardless of what you might think, I do know something about the history of science - perhaps less about the politics of science.

You and I can apparently agree that Galileo was convicted, put under lifelong house arrest, and that publication of any future work he did or might have done was banned by the Catholic Church. IMHO, the political nuances and details that underpin these facts are far less important than the facts themselves and the resulting outcome.

Is this a valid way to approach things? One might ask if my view or hypothesis of the relationship between religion and "dangerous" science, as suggested by my view of the Galileo affair, has any predictive value. In other words, is there evidence that, when faced with another scientific challenge to their dogma, the Catholic Church would behave badly and against the public interest yet again.

I claim that this is in fact the case, as I have described above in an earlier post. This idea of "dangerous science" would appear to be a valid working hypothesis - something that scientists value.

Believe it or not, the work I do gets done quite efficiently and effectively, even with my lack of appreciation for the level of historical accuracy that you apparently deem so important.

Perhaps my lack of appreciation for religious nuance stems from volunteering for the Marine Corps instead of going on a mission. Had I done the latter, I might have come to this point with more appreciation for religious and historic detail that seems so important to you. However, I am convinced that the magical thinking paradigms instilled into missionaries would have been an obstacle to be overcome in order to achieve success in science.

As it is, I am willing to change a position or view when confronted with disconfirming or contrary facts, not so much in the case of contrary opinion or third party analysis.

[volgadon]

One might ask if my view or hypothesis of the relationship between religion and dangerous science as suggested by my view of the Galileo affair has any predictive value.

It has been pointed out that the Galileo affair was not about dangerous science.

[WalkerW]

I have been quite irritated with you, Foxtrot. However, for whatever reason, I feel the need to better understand you, your position, and why you feel the way you do.

I am not a historian, and have not formally studied history any more than the next guy.

I'm not a historian either. It is more of a hobby of mine (one that has actually been helpful in my organizational behavior studies, believe it or not). Nonetheless, you've made comments in the past about history that made it seem as if you don't value it as much as your abstract category of "science." I believe this is a fundamentally flawed view that does nothing but undermine your present understanding of what "science" is. I'm sure you are rigorous in your scientific research. I wish, however, you would be more rigorous in trying to understand the way history, culture, and philosophy has shaped the current methodologies and understanding of science.

Regardless of what you might think, I do know something about the history of science - perhaps less about the politics of science.

Perhaps.

You and I can apparently agree that Galileo was convicted, put under lifelong house arrest, and that publication of any future work he did or might have done was banned by the Catholic Church.

We do.

IMHO, the political nuances and details that underpin these facts are far less important than the facts themselves and the resulting outcome.

That depends on how the facts are being used. In the context of our discussion and the OP ("Faith vs. Science"), these nuances are important. You have tried to paint "religion" in the abstract as hostile and incompatible with "science" in the abstract and you have attempted to use the Galileo event as an example of such. When you do this, the political and historical nuances become very important.

Is this a valid way to approach things?

It depends on the purpose and context of the discussion. I really think the only thing that you can draw from the strict facts of the Galileo event was that the Church was perhaps abusive in its power. When you start drawing philosophical implications such as hostility toward science as an inherent trait of religion, that is when you must understand the cultural, historical, and political context. The key figure, the Catholic Galileo himself, certainly didn't think there was an inherent hostility in his religious beliefs.

In other words, is there evidence that, when faced with another scientific challenge to their dogma, the Catholic Church would behave badly and against the public interest yet again.

I can kind of see where you are coming from, though that really deals more with the Catholic Church as a specific organization, not religious beliefs. One could possibly make a case against the organizational structure and not necessarily the key beliefs of Catholicism itself (such as the resurrection of Christ or a belief in God).

Nonetheless, this gets away from the whole "science vs. religion" context and moves more toward the Catholic Church as an entity. I'm not a Catholic apologist. The RCC have don't have a squeaky clean history by any means (neither do Mormons). But much of what has been said about the RCC is largely based on anti-Catholic Enlightenment and Protestant propaganda.

This idea of "dangerous science" would appear to be a valid working hypothesis - something that scientists value

Ok.

Believe it or not, the work I do gets done quite efficiently and effectively, even with my lack of appreciation for the level of historical accuracy that you apparently deem so important

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to. I'm not arguing that you can't do the scientific method appropriately or well without an appreciation or vast knowledge of history. That would be silly. But we aren't talking about your ability to do perform the scientific method. We are talking about constructing worldviews. While these may overlap, they are still different things. There is more to constructing a worldview than the scientific method.

Perhaps my lack of appreciation for religious nuance stems from volunteering for the Marine Corps instead of going on a mission.

Maybe, but not necessarily.

Had I done the latter, I might have come to this point with more appreciation for religious and historic detail that seems so important to you.

Possibly, but by no means necessarily.

However, I am convinced that the magical thinking paradigms instilled into missionaries would have been an obstacle to be overcome in order to achieve success in science.

I actually agree with you to an extent. Some of the Mormon folklore you hear your mission (or what I heard on mine, at least) should be cast to the "magical thinking paradigm." For whatever reason, though, you seem to think that I haven't done my own paradigm shifting. My studies of science, theology, history, philosophy, economics, etc. have caused multiple paradigm shifts over the past several years in various ways. I don't believe some of the things I did on my mission. The reason is because some of those beliefs were believed in ignorance. That's what learning is for.

As it is, I am willing to change a position or view when confronted with disconfirming or contrary facts, not so much in the case of contrary opinion or third party analysis

What I think you fail to realize is how much of your personal philosophy is influencing the way you apply the facts. Facts don't "speak for themselves." One must interpret them. You have been using these facts to push a particular view of religion and science. And for whatever reason, you seem to think that the facts regarding the political climate and situation aren't the same kind of facts as the three you listed. This is just incoherent.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am convinced that the magical thinking paradigms instilled into missionaries would have been an obstacle to be overcome in order to achieve success in science.

Sigh. It would almost certainly be a complete waste of time to point out to 44Foxtrot that the term magic/magical is so problematic that it's been retired as uselessly polemical and hopelessly incoherent in large areas of anthropology, comparative religion, history, and etc. (I've published on this, participated in a two-month NEH seminar on the topic at Princeton University, etc., etc.) So I won't bother.

It has already been useless to point out to 44Foxtrot that, according to abundant empirical evidence, missionary service and LDS belief don't seem to have proven major obstacles to scientific achievement. (Yet another anecdotal illustration appears here, though it will do little good in this case.)

[WalkerW]

Sigh. It would almost certainly be a complete waste of time to point out to 44Foxtrot that the term magic/magical is so problematic that it's been retired as uselessly polemical and hopelessly incoherent in large areas of anthropology, comparative religion, history, and etc. (I've published on this, participated in a two-month NEH seminar on the topic at Princeton University, etc., etc.) So I won't bother.

It has already been useless to point out to 44Foxtrot that, according to abundant empirical evidence, missionary service and LDS belief don't seem to have proven major obstacles to scientific achievement. (Yet another anecdotal illustration appears here, though it will do little good in this case.)

Very true. I ignored his polemic use of it. Nonetheless, saying "believing in religion is like believing in magic" is rather naive.

There is a reason D. Michael Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View had some scathing criticisms.

[44Foxtrot]

Sigh. It would almost certainly be a complete waste of time to point out to 44Foxtrot that the term magic/magical is so problematic that it's been retired as uselessly polemical and hopelessly incoherent in large areas of anthropology, comparative religion, history, and etc. (I've published on this, participated in a two-month NEH seminar on the topic at Princeton University, etc., etc.) So I won't bother.

It has already been useless to point out to 44Foxtrot that, according to abundant empirical evidence, missionary service and LDS belief don't seem to have proven major obstacles to scientific achievement. (Yet another anecdotal illustration appears here, though it will do little good in this case.)

Along with Bushman and Quinn, I happen to think that magic and magical thinking were central to the development of Mormonism. Missionaries often return from the mission field to recount their battles with evil forces, encounters with demons, miracles, and other magical stuff. I know that the RMs in my family did.

Missionaries spend their days in a generally futile attempt to sell an ever less popular and useful product to an ever more informed and skeptical public. On another thread, I have described the near zero conversion numbers from the missions of my three sons and what I paid for each convert they were able to make.

In the Marine Corps, on the other hand, one receives training in a skill or profession and learns and practices leadership, teamwork and decision making, often in some of the most stressful situations imaginable. We greatly value the vets in our technology-based organization. The "any day that noblody is shooting at you is a great day" attitude really comes through with these colleagues when the going gets tough. Returned missionaries - not so much.

[44Foxtrot]

I have been quite irritated with you, Foxtrot. However, for whatever reason, I feel the need to better understand you, your position, and why you feel the way you do.

Much appreciated.

I'm not a historian either. It is more of a hobby of mine (one that has actually been helpful in my organizational behavior studies, believe it or not). Nonetheless, you've made comments in the past about history that made it seem as if you don't value it as much as your abstract category of "science." I believe this is a fundamentally flawed view that does nothing but undermine your present understanding of what "science" is. I'm sure you are rigorous in your scientific research. I wish, however, you would be more rigorous in trying to understand the way history, culture, and philosophy has shaped the current methodologies and understanding of science.

Can't really disagree. It is a matter of time and priorities.

We do.

Great.

That depends on how the facts are being used. In the context of our discussion and the OP ("Faith vs. Science"), these nuances are important. You have tried to paint "religion" in the abstract as hostile and incompatible with "science" in the abstract and you have attempted to use the Galileo event as an example of such. When you do this, the political and historical nuances become very important.

It depends on the purpose and context of the discussion. I really think the only thing that you can draw from the strict facts of the Galileo event was that the Church was perhaps abusive in its power. When you start drawing philosophical implications such as hostility toward science as an inherent trait of religion, that is when you must understand the cultural, historical, and political context. The key figure, the Catholic Galileo himself, certainly didn't think there was an inherent hostility in his religious beliefs.

Fair enough. In Sobel's Galileo's Daughter, for example (a look at the life of Galileo based on surviving letters between him and his cloistered daughter, Virginia, or Maria Celeste) there is also support for your view as expressed here. So I would not disagree with your characterization of Galileo's frame of mind. As I have said, the outcome is what matters.

Sobel herself writes something to the effect that Galileo's treatment by the Catholic Church continues to define the schism between science and religion. Perhaps the whole affair has simply become iconic.

I can kind of see where you are coming from, though that really deals more with the Catholic Church as a specific organization, not religious beliefs. One could possibly make a case against the organizational structure and not necessarily the key beliefs of Catholicism itself (such as the resurrection of Christ or a belief in God).

Nonetheless, this gets away from the whole "science vs. religion" context and moves more toward the Catholic Church as an entity. I'm not a Catholic apologist. The RCC have don't have a squeaky clean history by any means (neither do Mormons). But much of what has been said about the RCC is largely based on anti-Catholic Enlightenment and Protestant propaganda.

Fair enough.

I actually agree with you to an extent. Some of the Mormon folklore you hear your mission (or what I heard on mine, at least) should be cast to the "magical thinking paradigm." For whatever reason, though, you seem to think that I haven't done my own paradigm shifting. My studies of science, theology, history, philosophy, economics, etc. have caused multiple paradigm shifts over the past several years in various ways. I don't believe some of the things I did on my mission. The reason is because some of those beliefs were believed in ignorance. That's what learning is for.

What I think you fail to realize is how much of your personal philosophy is influencing the way you apply the facts. Facts don't "speak for themselves." One must interpret them. You have been using these facts to push a particular view of religion and science. And for whatever reason, you seem to think that the facts regarding the political climate and situation aren't the same kind of facts as the three you listed. This is just incoherent.

I appreciate the time you took to write all of this. I will agree that I have been describing my position on this issue pretty much in terms of black and white. I don't agree that what I have written in incoherent. (Perhaps you could find a more appropriate term.)

As to a personal philosophy, I simply hold to the concept that one's beliefs should be based on credible, reproducible physical evidence. This should be self evident. I see religion as vestigial organ of social evolution held over from a time when the world was full of unseen demons and fairies and the only way humans could make sense of it was through superstition and unfounded belief.

One would hope that humankind would eventually move beyond this stage in its development and base its beliefs on objective evidence. There is more than adequate physical evidence available to form an accurate and useful working knowledge of how the world works without continuing to resort to superstition and magic.

[nicolasconnault]

Along with Bushman and Quinn, I happen to think that magic and magical thinkingwere central to the development of Mormonism. Missionaries often return from the mission field to recount their battles with evil forces, encounters with demons, miracles, and other magical stuff. I know that the RMs in my family did. Missionaries spend their days in a generally futile attempt to sell an ever less popular and useful product to an ever more informed and skeptical public. On another thread, I have described the near zero conversion numbers from the missions of my three sons and what I paid for each convert they were able to make.

In the Marine Corps, on the other hand, one receives training in a skill or profession and learns and practices leadership, teamwork and decision making, often in some of the most stressful situations imaginable. We greatly value the vets in our technology-based organization. The "any day that noblody is shooting at you is a great day" attitude really comes through with these colleagues when the going gets tough. Returned missionaries - not so much.

You call yourself a scientist and you make this kind of argument? That's appalling, Foxtrot! Here are the claims you are making in your post:

1. Most LDS missionaries believe in magic (anecdotal evidence based on "RMs in my family")
2. The "product" of Mormonism is "ever less popular and useful" (no basis for that claim)
3. The public is ever more sceptical and informed (what public? What is your proof?)
4. LDS missionaries convert nearly nobody (anecdotal evidence based on the missions of your three sons)
5. LDS missionaries do not receive any training in any skill (implicit claim, no basis)
6. LDS missionaries do not learn anything about leadership, teamwork or decision-making (implicit claim, no basis)
7. LDS missionaries do not go through stressful situations (implicit claim, no basis)
8. LDS missionaries are not valued in the workplace for the skills they acquired during their mission (implicit claim, no basis)

Will you maintain that your comparison was fair?

Should I also bother to point out that your post has nothing to do with the OP, but appears to be a blatant, baseless expression of your bigoted opinion of the LDS Church?

[44Foxtrot]

Very true. I ignored his polemic use of it. Nonetheless, saying "believing in religion is like believing in magic" is rather naive.

There is a reason D. Michael Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View had some scathing criticisms.

I would greatly appreciate hearing your explanation of how believing in religion is different from believing in magic. Naive or not, the analogy holds.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7947460.stm

[44Foxtrot]

You call yourself a scientist and you make this kind of argument? That's appalling, Foxtrot! Here are the claims you are making in your post:

1. Most LDS missionaries believe in magic (anecdotal evidence based on "RMs in my family")
2. The "product" of Mormonism is "ever less popular and useful" (no basis for that claim)
3. The public is ever more sceptical and informed (what public? What is your proof?)
4. LDS missionaries convert nearly nobody (anecdotal evidence based on the missions of your three sons)
5. LDS missionaries do not learn any training in any skill (implicit claim, no basis)
6. LDS missionaries do not learn anything about leadership, teamwork or decision-making (implicit claim, no basis)
7. LDS missionaries do not go through stressful situations (implicit claim, no basis)
8. LDS missionaries are not valued in the workplace for the skills they acquired during their mission (implicit claim, no basis)

Will you maintain that your comparison was fair?

My comments on missions and missionaries are based on my observations and reading, as well as discussions with both returned and current missionaries, a number of whom my wife usually feeds in our home on a monthly basis. I do not claim that my comments are any more than informed opinions. However, they are opinions shared by many, including more RMs than you might think as a faithful member of the LDS Church.

To get to specifics; are you going to claim that two years spent walking or riding around on bicycles trying to find people to talk with about the Church is in any way comparable in terms of learned leadership, acquired skills or practiced teamwork to two years spent (for example) learning to maintain and repair avionics, computers, communications gear, weapons, diesel and gas turbine engines, etc., and eventually leading a team that keeps helicopter gunships flying or tanks rolling in battle?

Are you claiming that missing your Mission President's monthly quota or getting a "Dear John" letter generates stress equal to that of being shot at?

In our workplace, the skills and attitude acquired in military service turn out to be more apparent and valuable than those acquired on a mission (small n). Foreign language skills would be a possible exception here, but the foreign language skills our RMs happen to have are not useful to us right now.

[Jeff K.]

Relative to abstinence condoms are significantly less effective, but I really should have been more clear...

It has been reported in the UK that the Catholic Church went so far as to tell its congregates in Africa that condoms had small holes in them that allowed the AIDS virus to pass and were therefore not effective against AIDS. The WHO and other organizations estimats that the lives lost in Africa because of the denial of this science by the Catholic Church ranges into the millions.

This is the CFR I was looking for.

[nicolasconnault]

To get to specifics; are you going to claim that two years spent walking or riding around on bicycles trying to find people to talk with about the Church is in any way comparable in terms of learned leadership, acquired skills or practiced teamwork to two years spent (for example) learning to maintain and repair avionics, computers, communications gear, weapons, diesel and gas turbine engines, etc.,

Yes, absolutely, 100%!

... and eventually leading a team that keeps helicopter gunships flying or tanks rolling in battle? Are you serious?

this is becoming far more specific now, and of course the comparison is no longer valid, but your implicit claims still require corrections.

Are you claiming that missing your mission presidents monthly quota or getting a "Dear John" letter generates stress equal to that of being shot at?

So these are the only stressful situations you think FT missionaries face? Either you're very uninformed or very disingenuous. I'd be only glad to share with you some of the situations I faced on my mission.

In our workplace, the skills and attitude acquired in military service turn out to be more apparent and valuable than those acquired on a mission (small n).

Again, that is your workplace, that is very specific. In my experience, the skills and habits I acquired during my mission have been of immense benefit to my happiness and success in life, and that of my family. In fact, they have been foundational. I don't believe that any 2-year training in any field could possibly have replaced that. My mission was the best investment of time I have ever made in my life (I'm currently in my 5th year of university studies and that pales in comparison).

[Jeff K.]

My comments on missions and missionaries are based on my observations and reading, as well as discussions with both returned and current missionaries, a number of whom my wife usually feeds in our home on a monthly basis. I do not claim that my comments are any more than informed opinions. However, they are opinions shared by many, including more RMs than you might think as a faithful member of the LDS Church.

To get to specifics; are you going to claim that two years spent walking or riding around on bicycles trying to find people to talk with about the Church is in any way comparable in terms of learned leadership, acquired skills or practiced teamwork to two years spent (for example) learning to maintain and repair avionics, computers, communications gear, weapons, diesel and gas turbine engines, etc., and eventually leading a team that keeps helicopter gunships flying or tanks rolling in battle? Are you serious?

It is here that we see he cannot admit to the fact that it is indeed anecdotal. Does he know what that means?

However, they are opinions shared by many, including more RMs than you might think as a faithful member of the LDS Church.

Then with that anecdotal evidence he procedes to inform you that he knows more than you.

Then he explores and promotes his fallacies:

To get to specifics; are you going to claim that two years spent walking or riding around on bicycles trying to find people to talk with about the Church is in any way comparable in terms of learned leadership, acquired skills or practiced teamwork to two years spent (for example) learning to maintain and repair avionics, computers, communications gear, weapons, diesel and gas turbine engines, etc., and eventually leading a team that keeps helicopter gunships flying or tanks rolling in battle? Are you serious?

Can the boy say "false dichotomy"? Does a mission create leadership opportunities? Yes. Does it require teamwork? Yes. Does it mean you will never take a class of avionics, computers, communications gear and so on? Is he serious? Or as I would say... "Your ignorance is showing again.

Are you claiming that missing your mission presidents monthly quota or getting a "Dear John" letter generates stress equal to that of being shot at?

False dichotomy. I know more than a few returned missionaries who entered the military. Those that enter as recruits tend to become squad leaders. Those who go through OTS with degrees tend to lead their groups. What does this he know? Not much. Anyone who raises such false dichotomies is clueless to the sacrifices made for both missions and military service.

In our workplace, the skills and attitude acquired in military service turn out to be more apparent and valuable than those acquired on a mission (small n).

Most miilitary men and women I know would look upon the little man with contempt because of his prejudicial nature towards religion and utter failure to show any real intellectual ability.

Now for some real life. My brother is not a member of the church 25 years retired from the Airforce. His comments to me have always been positive in regard to how well Mormons specifically returned missionaries who are sometimes new recruits acting proactively and keeping an eye on the goals their team were to achieve in a given month, something they learn on their missions and easily adapt to in military life.

My other brother is former army, generally the same stance.

My youngest brother, Naval Air Force pilot flying ASW's. Now works on joint projects between Cisco and Google. Pretty much the same story.

I am the only member in my family and my father was an avowed atheist, no one on my family would have pulled this kind of tripe. It really bothers me when trolls seem to so freely graze and make such ignorant statements. He allows his prejudice to run free, makes unsubstantiated claims, fails in the knowledge of history and expects people to take his kind of awful prejudice as acceptable? I find his type of human to be a deplorable and vague reflection of the worst humanity has to offer.

[Nathan6329]

Well no scientist can accurately explain how the Earth and the Universe could have all been created from absolutely nothing. However, the way the Bible describes the Earth's creation is impossible. So there has to be a common ground somewhere.

[nicolasconnault]

Most miilitary men and women I know would look upon the little man with contempt because of his prejudicial nature towards religion and utter failure to show any real intellectual ability.

Now for some real life. My brother is not a member of the church 25 years retired from the Airforce. His comments to me have always been positive in regard to how well Mormons specifically returned missionaries who are sometimes new recruits acting proactively and keeping an eye on the goals their team were to achieve in a given month, something they learn on their missions and easily adapt to in military life.

My other brother is former army, generally the same stance.

My youngest brother, Naval Air Force pilot flying ASW's. Now works on joint projects between Cisco and Google. Pretty much the same story.

I am the only member in my family and my father was an avowed atheist, no one on my family would have pulled this kind of tripe.

The problem with all this, Jeff, is that it is anecdotal. However, when conversing with 44Foxtrot, it's not really a problem, you're just hitting his ball back to him