Faith Vs. Science

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.

Nice transition into pure ad hominem. It is a fine example you set. I am sure the rest of the LDS community is pleased that they have you to represent them on the www.

Mr. Hamblin

Don't you think Dr. Peterson should answer for himself? Perhaps his silence can be accepted as a form of answer? For various reasons, he is a lightning rod for criticism. I'm sure he can handle it, by now.

I understand the impulse to rush to to the defense of your religion this way, but the reality is that *most* people find the beliefs on the LDS church to be ridiculous... worthy of ridicule. While people who know Mormons are often quick to say things like, "they are nice people," and no matter how they feel about how hard working or intelligent a Mormon is, they still laugh at their beliefs. The more they know about the specifics, the more they laugh.

People just find the details of the religion to be too far-fetched. I am not suggesting that other religions are undeserving of ridicule, Mormons just happen to be in a position where, not only are atheists happy to take a jab, adherents to Christianity, at large, can find common ground with the utterly godless when it comes to poking fun at Mormons. I think Fox may be right that their openly meddlesome ways drew some fire, but I think it was more anger that was created in recent circumstances. Before that, South Park was the guiding light for many people's opinions.

Edit: I am still curious about the significance of mainstream science ignoring LDS scholarship. What is the perceived significance of this?

One might state the same in your rush to defend those who are prejudist against the Mormons. It isn't a rush to defense, I find the man to be an unethical and disturbing individual who judges a person and denies them rights based on their religion. The nature of such individuals are dangerous since they tend to dehumanize (as foxy has), and demean without cause or evidence while ignoring every counter point made. Nations have been led to ruin that way.

[44Foxtrot]

It is, of course, just possible that you are wrong about the BOM.

Feel free to disagree all you want. But please don't fantasize about the motives, intelligence, honesty, methodologies, etc. etc. of those with whom you disagree when you manifestly don't know what you're talking about, since you haven't actually bothered to read their books. Your several paragraph discourse on my imagined beliefs, character and methods is preposterous bull-pucky.

Also, feel free to not waste your time reading BOM scholarship. But the price you have to pay for that refusal is that you should have the integrity to shut up about a topic on which you are admittedly uninformed.

I know this may come as a surprise, but everyone who disagrees with you about God and religion and Mormonism is not necessarily an idiot, a moral reprobate, a liar, delusional or a mercenary hack. Sometime intelligent and informed people of good will just happen to disagree on all sorts of things. Although it may be foreign to your experience, it really does happen.

I have used none of the bolded terms you ascribe to me in referring to you or your work or that of anyone else that I know of. Why do you insist on attributing to me these characterizations of you and your colleagues?

Let me ask you this. Can you imagine that someone who was a scientist or engineer might not be interested in reading about claims that Greek mythology was actually reflective of reality?

Do you not think that once such an individual was exposed to the Greek myths and legends, and knew enough about them that he could hold up a conversation when the subject turned to Greek mythology, he might not be interested in reading the works of folks who claimed that Zeus or the Titans were real?

Having done the required reading in a couple of classics and philosophy classes, do you not think a practicing scientist would be justified in stating that he did not believe Zeus was real and therefore did not take the "Zeus literalists" seriously?

You might be surprised how many people would agree wholeheartedly with my preposterous bull-pucky description of what Mormon apologists actually do, and how they do it. Remember, there are more inactive, apostate, and ex-Mormons Mormons in the world than there are active Mormons.

As I have proposed several times, let's just agree to disagree.

[Bikeemikey]

While any given religious belief may have any degree of harmony or disharmony with any given scientific hypothesis, the foundation of the two beliefs are quite different.

Ultimately, faith is about choosing to believe in something despite the lack of evidence. The scientific method is about rigorously trying to disprove your hypothesis, and then only tentatively accepting it when there is no other explanation. Faith is believing without seeing. Skepticism is not believing until you have proof.

Alma 32 makes it very clear that the method for developing and growing faith (which is only a stepping stone to the goal of knowledge) is test the idea, look at the results, compare the results to the expected outcome, repeat until your learning is perfected.

Faith is the religious process of discovering knowledge.

Science is the worldly process for the same thing.

Science and faith are different because faith allows the valid acceptance to data sources that go beyond what science traditionally accepts (the spiritual data).

Both have the goal of discovery and expansion of human understanding. Science is not founded in skepticism but inquiry, also skepticism is not the antithesis of faith. Alma's process of faith tells us to look for the outcome, don't just believe something and then ignore the results of that belief.

We are stuck with faith but ought to have the goal of developing knowledge.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am one of those. It is impossible to have a civil discussion with Foxtrot, who arrogance is overweening, and his dismissive attitude to those with whom he disagrees is quite astonishing. The fact that he doesn't recognize these characteristics in himself makes it all the more absurd to try to have a reasoned discussion with him. I, for one, refuse to try to carry on a rational conversation with someone who thinks I am fundamentally immoral, dishonest, irrational and delusional. But I'm funny that way.

That's pretty much the way I see the situation, too. And I'm perfectly astonished that he can't see it.

Apparently you have quite a following among the unwashed. (But you probably knew that.)

I really, really hope that your reference to "the unwashed" was meant overwhelmingingly in jest. Unfortunately, it seems pretty consistent with your view of us lesser folk.

I received an e-mail from a colleague who is not a member of MD&D, but apparently lurks here religiously.

She asked me to pose to you the following question regarding your statement that you were not an apologetics "slave".

"What do you think would happen to your position at BYU if you were to find fault with Church doctrine and policies and make your concerns public?"

She pointed out that she could return to Mormonism any time without affecting her employment. She doubted that your employment at BYU would be safe if you were to be seen turning away from Mormonism. In that respect, she doubts your claim about not being a "slave" (your words, not mine).

I would have some degree or other of trouble in such a case.

As I would if, say, I had written several "Amateur Scientist" columns for Scientific American and it then became known to the magazine's editors that I was a creationist. As it would also, according to what you've told us, if I were a theist applying for a job with your company.

There are distinct ideological limits at many places in American higher education. Some are formal; most are not. I rather doubt, for example, that a Holocaust-denier would get a job at Brandeis -- or, for that matter, at UCLA or the University of Wisconsin.

But the terms of my employment at BYU have never required me to write a single line of apologetics. Indeed, in many cases, my superiors would surely prefer that I do no apologetics at all. And my situation is very far from unique. So, if your friend is hoping to brand me, despite my denial, as an "apologetics slave," she's going to have to work quite a bit harder at it.

Don't you think Dr. Peterson should answer for himself? Perhaps his silence can be accepted as a form of answer?

Professor Hamblin has done just fine, and I endorse his message.

I apologize profusely for my failure to respond instantly to 44Foxtrot's friend's question. My life should, of course, revolve around this message board, but, alas, it does not.

I was invited today to go up to my brother-in-law's ward in Centerville, Utah, where I delivered a ludicrous and typically dishonest pseudoscholarly presentation, accompanied by PowerPoint illustrations (of Egyptian temple reliefs, Byzantine manuscripts, Islamic miniatures from the Mi

[Bill Hamblin]

Professor Hamblin has done just fine, and I endorse his message.

I endorse Professor Peterson's endorsement.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have used none of the bolded terms you ascribe to me in referring to you or your work or that of anyone else that I know of. Why do you insist on attributing to me these characterizations of you and your colleagues?

Let me ask you this. Can you imagine that someone who was a scientist or engineer might not be interested in reading about claims that Greek mythology was actually reflective of reality?

Do you not think that once such an individual was exposed to the Greek myths and legends, and knew enough about them that he could hold up a conversation when the subject turned to Greek mythology, he might not be interested in reading the works of folks who claimed that Zeus or the Titans were real?

Having done the required reading in a couple of classics and philosophy classes, do you not think a practicing scientist would be justified in stating that he did not believe Zeus was real and therefore did not take the "Zeus literalists" seriously?

You might be surprised how many people would agree wholeheartedly with my preposterous bull-pucky description of what Mormon apologists actually do, and how they do it. Remember, there are more inactive, apostate, and ex-Mormons Mormons in the world than there are active Mormons.

As I have proposed several times, let's just agree to disagree.

I'm sorry, but this is not something we can just agree to disagree about. Most things I can, but not this. We can agree to disagree about the historicity of the BOM, or the existence of God, or American politics. But your perpetual dismissive attitude of the intelligence and rationality of believing LDS is, frankly, intolerably arrogant, smug, and bigoted.

Let's take a parallel example. I don't believe in Scientology. My opinion of Scientology probably parallels your opinion of Mormonism. I know about as little about Scientology as you do about the scholarly study of BOM historicity. No one, in a single lifetime, can study the various disciplines, religions, sciences, etc. with sufficient depth to make a personal informed decision. So, for the most part, we rely on expert opinion. Which is fine, and inevitable. So, what is the difference between you and me. Well, for one thing, I ignore the Scientologists, while you insist on going on LDS discussion boards to pontificate about how abysmally stupid Mormonism is, and how all really intelligent people universally ridicule Mormon ideas. But more importantly, if I were to go on a Scientology discussion board and begin to tell them how foolish they are, etc. I would do my Homework. I'd read Dianetics, and inform myself about Scientology. If a Scientologist suggested I read a book that counters a claim I made, I'd read it. Indeed, I would feel an intellectual and moral responsibility to do so. I would not blithely pontificate about how absurd Scientology while refusing to inform myself on the current state of Scientology. Can you see what my objection is?

Imagine if I had read a basic college textbook on physics. Knowing no calculous, I then proceeded to critique the absurdities of string theory. You then suggest that maybe I should read a book defending string theory. I say there's really no need. Let's just agree to disagree. My position would, I suspect, be intellectually untenable.

You, quite frankly, are uninformed on the subject of BOM historicity. Not only have you not read the requisite books required to make an informed judgement, you consistently refuse to do so. Indeed, you insist that you don't need to. Mormonism is simply too absurd to even merit a passing defense. You have no intellectual standing to make the types of sweeping judgements you constantly make. Do your homework, or shut up.

[Mortal Man]

I just want to say that Bill and Dan are really smart.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just want to say that Bill and Dan are really smart.

Thanks. You're correct.

And we're right, too.

Life is good.

[WalkerW]

If you think people aren't dismissed from secularly universities for failure to follow the PC party line (on, for example feminisim, homosexuality, race, gender, politics, theism, "diversity" and "tolerance") then you have no idea of how academia really works.

For recent work on this very subject, see George Yancey (sociologist at my very own University of North Texas), Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education (Baylor University Press, 2011).

[44Foxtrot]

I really, really hope that your reference to "the unwashed" was meant overwhelmingingly in jest. Unfortunately, it seems pretty consistent with your view of us lesser folk.

The term "unwashed" was a reference to those of us who are apostates, ex-Mormons, atheists and the like. I apologize if that was unclear from the context.

[44Foxtrot]

I'm sorry, but this is not something we can just agree to disagree about. Most things I can, but not this. We can agree to disagree about the historicity of the BOM, or the existence of God, or American politics. But your perpetual dismissive attitude of the intelligence and rationality of believing LDS is, frankly, intolerably arrogant, smug, and bigoted.

Let's take a parallel example. I don't believe in Scientology. My opinion of Scientology probably parallels your opinion of Mormonism. I know about as little about Scientology as you do about the scholarly study of BOM historicity. No one, in a single lifetime, can study the various disciplines, religions, sciences, etc. with sufficient depth to make a personal informed decision. So, for the most part, we rely on expert opinion. Which is fine, and inevitable. So, what is the difference between you and me. Well, for one thing, I ignore the Scientologists, while you insist on going on LDS discussion boards to pontificate about how abysmally stupid Mormonism is, and how all really intelligent people universally ridicule Mormon ideas. But more importantly, if I were to go on a Scientology discussion board and begin to tell them how foolish they are, etc. I would do my Homework. I'd read Dianetics, and inform myself about Scientology. If a Scientologist suggested I read a book that counters a claim I made, I'd read it. Indeed, I would feel an intellectual and moral responsibility to do so. I would not blithely pontificate about how absurd Scientology while refusing to inform myself on the current state of Scientology. Can you see what my objection is?

Imagine if I had read a basic college textbook on physics. Knowing no calculous, I then proceeded to critique the absurdities of string theory. You then suggest that maybe I should read a book defending string theory. I say there's really no need. Let's just agree to disagree. My position would, I suspect, be intellectually untenable.

You, quite frankly, are uninformed on the subject of BOM historicity. Not only have you not read the requisite books required to make an informed judgement, you consistently refuse to do so. Indeed, you insist that you don't need to. Mormonism is simply too absurd to even merit a passing defense. You have no intellectual standing to make the types of sweeping judgements you constantly make. Do your homework, or shut up.

Here is the problem with your view of the issue and your string theory analogy.

String theory is the best hypothesis we have right now in the development of a "theory of everything". It can account for a great deal of data, including the relative strength of the gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It is mathematically consistent and better than any other hypothesis in explaining weak gravity and other phenomena. No current hypothesis for a theory of everything is better.

The hypothesis that underlies your work, that is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from a supernatural source, turns out to be the weakest among the possible hypotheses. For one thing, since it involves the supernatural, it is not falsifiable, so I am being very kind in even referring to it as a hypothesis.

In summary, we have one set of assertions that are mathematically consistent and best explain the relevant data. We have another set of assertions that are based on a non-falsifiable hypothesis and for which the alternative hypothesis (that Joseph Smith and possibly others perpetrated a massive fraud) better accounts for all of the available physical evidence.

Can you see the problem from a rational scientific point of view?

If you see this as arrogant or somehow uninformed, I am sorry.

I understand that it is difficult for those who have a real professional stake in the historicity of the BoM to simply play the "faith card" and bear testimony in such as situation.

I am heading out to an area where I will not have access to the internet for a couple of days. So I will be accommodating your request to leave this thread.

I will say that our discussion has been enlightening.

Have a good week.

[Jeff K.]

The hypothesis that underlies your work, that is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from a supernatural source, turns out to be the weakest among the possible hypotheses. For one thing, since it involves the supernatural, it is not falsifiable, so I am being very kind in even referring to it as a hypothesis.

Many primitive societies believe that what they cannot explain is supernatural. I suppose its a hard habit to break when you an absolutist like foxy. If supernatural means unexplainable at the time, well, yes, I suppose under that definition it would work. If supernatural means outside of nature and therefore impossible, then foxy now belongs to those primitive societies in which a grunt states it all. Using the former definition I would say foxy's ignorance of Mormons and Mormon culture is supernatural. But I do not believe he fits into the latter catagory related to his ignorance being so deep it is something outside of nature. It is merely presently unexplainable for him.

In summary, we have one set of assertions that are mathematically consistent and best explain the relevant data. We have another set of assertions that are based on a non-falsifiable hypothesis and for which the alternative hypothesis (that Joseph Smith and possibly others perpetrated a massive fraud) better accounts for all of the available physical evidence.

You know, until Copernicus we had one set of mathematically consistent data that stated the earth was the center of the universe, and it was relevant and non falsifiable. Foxy would have burned Galileo at the stake for what he said. Its almost "supernatural".

Can you see the problem from a rational scientific point of view?

Let us know when you present one. Prejudice is not natural Foxy, it never was and though you might attempt to smear a dollop of arrogance to make your words sound as if they are "scientific" to you, when you strip away the thin veneer you end up with a mean little figure which denies jobs to people based on their religion and unethically applies double standards in order to sustain his own dangerous world view. As I have said, I have grave doubts about your assertions of "running a company" and your assertions of science in your background (you certainly haven't proved it yet). Such small mindedness as you have displayed in your arrogance (ie since I do not believe it it must not be true) goes a long way towards undermining your credibility.

I am heading out to an area where I will not have access to the internet for a couple of days. So I will be accommodating your request to leave this thread.

Translation: [its getting too hot here for me and so I am running away to let things cool down. Then I will spew some more later.]

[LT123]

Here is the problem with your view of the issue and your string theory analogy.

String theory is the best hypothesis we have right now in the development of a "theory of everything". It can account for a great deal of data, including the relative strength of the gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It is mathematically consistent and better than any other hypothesis in explaining weak gravity and other phenomena. No current hypothesis for a theory of everything is better.

The hypothesis that underlies your work, that is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from a supernatural source, turns out to be the weakest among the possible hypotheses. For one thing, since it involves the supernatural, it is not falsifiable, so I am being very kind in even referring to it as a hypothesis.

In summary, we have one set of assertions that are mathematically consistent and best explain the relevant data. We have another set of assertions that are based on a non-falsifiable hypothesis and for which the alternative hypothesis (that Joseph Smith and possibly others perpetrated a massive fraud) better accounts for all of the available physical evidence.

Can you see the problem from a rational scientific point of view?

If you see this as arrogant or somehow uninformed, I am sorry.

I understand that it is difficult for those who have a real professional stake in the historicity of the BoM to simply play the "faith card" and bear testimony in such as situation.

I am heading out to an area where I will not have access to the internet for a couple of days. So I will be accommodating your request to leave this thread.

I will say that our discussion has been enlightening.

Have a good week.

It appears to be the case that the beautiful butterfly-collector hasn't come close to responding to Dr. Hamblin's point.

[WalkerW]

String theory is the best hypothesis we have right now in the development of a "theory of everything". It can account for a great deal of data, including the relative strength of the gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It is mathematically consistent and better than any other hypothesis in explaining weak gravity and other phenomena. No current hypothesis for a theory of everything is better.

Then someone who wants to argue against it in an online discussion board should be well read on the subject if they are going to do so.

The hypothesis that underlies your work, that is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from a supernatural source, turns out to be the weakest among the possible hypotheses. For one thing, since it involves the supernatural, it is not falsifiable, so I am being very kind in even referring to it as a hypothesis.

Well don't hurt yourself being too kind. As Richard Bushman said,

Rather than reply to the revilers, Joseph contented himself with writing an account of events as he had experienced them, to which were added reports from many friends and family members. Together they constitute the bulk of the historical record, the original source material for the story of the Book of Mormon's recovery. Narrations that balk before the miraculous events and try to tell another story must suppress these sources and disregard the consistent and detailed accounts from the people who knew Joseph Smith best (Bushman, "The Recovery of the Book of Mormon," in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, FARMS, 1997).

In summary, we have one set of assertions that are mathematically consistent and best explain the relevant data. We have another set of assertions that are based on a non-falsifiable hypothesis and for which the alternative hypothesis (that Joseph Smith and possibly others perpetrated a massive fraud) better accounts for all of the available physical evidence.

No, "a massive fraud" is your default when you throw out the majority of the historical record, decide before hand that "the supernatural can't happen," and ignore the possibility of personal spiritual experience. To quote Ron Hellings,

What scientists do is what Karl Popper said in his cute definition of science:

[Analytics]

Alma 32 makes it very clear that the method for developing and growing faith (which is only a stepping stone to the goal of knowledge) is test the idea, look at the results, compare the results to the expected outcome, repeat until your learning is perfected.

Faith is the religious process of discovering knowledge.

Science is the worldly process for the same thing.

Science and faith are different because faith allows the valid acceptance to data sources that go beyond what science traditionally accepts (the spiritual data).

Both have the goal of discovery and expansion of human understanding. Science is not founded in skepticism but inquiry, also skepticism is not the antithesis of faith. Alma's process of faith tells us to look for the outcome, don't just believe something and then ignore the results of that belief.

We are stuck with faith but ought to have the goal of developing knowledge.

Hi Bikeemikey,

I agree that the Alma 32 is a "test" of sorts.

Psychologists have proven that human beings are prone to believing false things. Sometimes believing in false things is simply credulity (for example, see the thread on Nibiru). Even if somebody isn

[WalkerW]

Hi Bikeemikey,

I agree that the Alma 32 is a "test" of sorts.

Psychologists have proven that human beings are prone to believing false things. Sometimes believing in false things is simply credulity (for example, see the thread on Nibiru). Even if somebody isn

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Bikeemikey,

I agree that the Alma 32 is a "test" of sorts.

Psychologists have proven that human beings are prone to believing false things. Sometimes believing in false things is simply credulity (for example, see the thread on Nibiru). Even if somebody isn

[WalkerW]

I actually read and eventually bought Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions because of Kevin's articles. My copy is sitting in my car right now.

I think what is often missed about religious beliefs compared with other beliefs is that religion is about the entire purpose of life and existence. It is a worldview. I don't contemplate being, existence, and life's purpose the same way I contemplate, say, economics. It isn't the same thing.

[Analytics]

Fortunately, we can also test the quality of this reading of Alma 32. I find this a particularly weak reading. My essay in RBBM 7:2 was an extended comparison between Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions....

That

[Bill Hamblin]

Here is the problem with your view of the issue and your string theory analogy.

String theory is the best hypothesis we have right now in the development of a "theory of everything". It can account for a great deal of data, including the relative strength of the gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It is mathematically consistent and better than any other hypothesis in explaining weak gravity and other phenomena. No current hypothesis for a theory of everything is better.

The hypothesis that underlies your work, that is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from a supernatural source, turns out to be the weakest among the possible hypotheses. For one thing, since it involves the supernatural, it is not falsifiable, so I am being very kind in even referring to it as a hypothesis.

In summary, we have one set of assertions that are mathematically consistent and best explain the relevant data. We have another set of assertions that are based on a non-falsifiable hypothesis and for which the alternative hypothesis (that Joseph Smith and possibly others perpetrated a massive fraud) better accounts for all of the available physical evidence.

Can you see the problem from a rational scientific point of view?

If you see this as arrogant or somehow uninformed, I am sorry.

I understand that it is difficult for those who have a real professional stake in the historicity of the BoM to simply play the "faith card" and bear testimony in such as situation.

I am heading out to an area where I will not have access to the internet for a couple of days. So I will be accommodating your request to leave this thread.

I will say that our discussion has been enlightening.

Have a good week.

Good grief you are one thick-headed person.

First, you (willfully?) misunderstood the analogy, employing the fallacy of the perfect analogy. The point of the analogy is between critics who dismiss an idea without understanding it, while refusing to actually learn anything about it. It doesn't matter if the idea being dismissed is true or false. What matters is the attitude of the dismisser. It is a matter of intellectual integrity. If you are going to repeatedly proclaim that historicity of the BOM is idiotic while never bothering to actually read current scholarship on the subject, you lack fundamental intellectual integrity. Worse, you refuse to be educated on the topic. Maybe you are right about the BOM. But, if so, you are right for the wrong reason. Being right is not the issue here. Intellectual integrity is the issue. One can have intellectual integrity and be wrong on a subject, and one can lack intellectual integrity and still be right. This is not about disbelieving the BOM. It is about claiming that those who believe in historicity are idiots, while refusing to even look at the actual arguments they make.

Second, this statement is a gem:

I understand that it is difficult for those who have a real professional stake in the historicity of the BoM to simply play the "faith card" and bear testimony in such as situation.

This is exactly the type of arrogance and condescension that make it impossible to have a rational conversation with you. You refuse to engage the actual evidence and analysis--I've never seen you do so--instead insisting on the fundamental lack of integrity of those with whom you disagree. When have I played the "faith card"? CFR. Am I doing so now? The issue at hand is your personal intellectual integrity. I am evaluating this based on the overt and explicit evidence of what you have said and done on this board. It has nothing to do with faith. It really has nothing to do with the historicity of the BOM.

I have criticized your personal lack of intellectual integrity based on clear public evidence. You, on the other hand, have criticized the intellectual integrity of many believers in the BOM, claiming that they support the historicity of the BOM, not because they actually believe it or think there is plausible evidence for it, but because of venal self interest When you claim that I defend the historicity of the BOM because I have a "real professional stake in the historicity" you are degenerating to character assassination and slander. You know nothing about me. You have never met me. Other than the most basic level, you do not know what I believe or why I believe it. Nothing I have said here would allow you to make the kind of claim that you do about me, nor about Dan or anyone else for that matter.

I have no professional stake in the historicity of the BOM. I could simply remain silent on the subject and retain my job at BYU without the slightest difficulty, as, in fact, most faculty at BYU do. The vast majority of faculty at BYU have never written a paper support the historicity of the BOM, and never will. And that is perfectly legitimate, since accounting or physics or dance have nothing to do with BOM historicity. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to why I choose to defend the BOM, but I can categorically tell you it is not to protect my job, pay raises, or promotions at BYU.

[Kevin Christensen]

That

[Analytics]

Hi Kevin,

To keep focused, I asserted the following:

1- Human beings are prone to psychological traps that impede an objective analysis of the evidence. These are things such as credulity, wishful thinking, overconfidence, and confirmation basis.

You responded by telling me how you don

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin,

To keep focused, I asserted the following:

1- Human beings are prone to psychological traps that impede an objective analysis of the evidence. These are things such as credulity, wishful thinking, overconfidence, and confirmation basis.

You responded by telling me how you don

[Analytics]

I'm not reluctant at all. I'm just observing the rhetorical strategy that points the charge of "poor reasoning" at believers, as though it does not also apply to ideological doubters. Jesus talked about the importance of first checking one's own eye for motes. Self-criticism, self-reflection should come first....

Look at the pot calling the...

Just because I'm replying to the topic of this thread (the differences between faith and science), doesn

[TAO]

1- Human beings are prone to psychological traps that impede an objective analysis of the evidence. These are things such as credulity, wishful thinking, overconfidence, and confirmation basis.

Indeed they are. But considering that all experiences are psychological and are to some degree subjective, wouldn't that mean science could be falling to this same trap you describe?

2- Science is acutely aware of these traps, and takes painstaking measures to avoid them.

I disagree. Science is based on observation. However, your sense of observation are not proven. They are subjective. However, science ignores this.

3- The experimentation procedure laid out in Alma 32 doesn