Will facts eventually rule the day?

[Bikeemikey]

What does this even mean? I am not smart enough to decipher cryptic comments that appear to make statements but do not inherently explain themselves.

It think he might be stating a long held belief in philosophy that it is not always reasonable to be rational and rational to be reasonable. Using rational and reasonable as defined in the philosophy of mind.

As science is grounded in rational and reason based methods of inquiry it may seem there is an inherent inconsistency in the method.

Not sure I agree, but many have argued such.

[44Foxtrot]

Your statement is very short sighted. Some day when you have a better view of things, you will see that Joseph Smith's revelations were of eternal value to humankind.

Marvin,

Do you have any credible evidence to support your claim?

Because counter to your non-falsifiable hypothesis is the an alternative hypothesis, backed by a great deal of credible documented evidence, that Joseph Smith's "revelations" were mainly oriented to getting Joseph Smith what he wanted, with an emphasis on women outside of his marriage to Emma, including other men's wives.

[Deborah]

Yes religious knowledge is not really knowledge and should not be treated as such.

And that is where the debate is. Religious knowledge, just like scientific knowledge is put to the test and experimented on. Mere belief doesn't suffice in the long-term. One has to study and experiment and continually expand one's understanding as new knowledge and enlightenment comes.

If you think about it what practical knowledge did God reveal to Joseph?

The restored gospel is a practical faith. The Law of Consecration is a very practical way to aid others in need. The very organization of the church is such a practical way to run what turned out to be a world-wide church. How else can the church be in places in the world with aide long before others can even begin to organize. I get thrilled when I read those sections of the D&C which talk about organizing quorums, etc. These things are still in place after all this time.

Tobacco for cattle and bruises?

Have you ever used tobacco for a bee sting? I am allergic to bee stings and was at an outside activity years ago when I got stung by a bee. We found some people at the park who had cigarettes. I made a paste with the tobacco with immediate relief and my hand ended up not swelling up to 3 times its size like it usually did.

[Deborah]

Because counter to your non-falsifiable hypothesis is the an alternative hypothesis, backed by a great deal of credible documented evidence, that Joseph Smith's "revelations" were mainly oriented to getting Joseph Smith what he wanted, with an emphasis on women outside of his marriage to Emma, including other men's wives.

This is blatantly false and offensive.

[44Foxtrot]

I must say that was a highly enlightening post for me. Yes religious knowledge is not really knowledge and should not be treated as such. I think the issue that gets brought is when those of true belief take their belief as perfect knowledge and therefore by nature attempt to incorporate it into policy in their family and community. Sometimes it is good policy and sometimes it is not. But to the believer it is all good since it could not be bad because it is from God.

Yes i believe you are correct. If you think about it what practical knowledge did God reveal to Joseph? I guess one might say the WofW, but then that is not even very accurate in its application. Tobacco for cattle and bruises? Revelation boils down to mostly policy about the behavioral does and dont's

Perhaps one should say that the believer believes that things he or she holds as religious knowledge are from God. Have you ever noticed the likes and dislikes, preferences, and morality of one's Deity mirror their own?

It has been pretty well established that the WoW was simply a re-statement of an emerging view of diet and nutrition and use of natural products that was popular in Joseph Smith's time. This is not surprising considering all of the other aspects of Joseph Smith's religion that were simply copied (and often not very creatively) from other people and institutions (temple rituals from the Masons) , or made up on the spot from whole cloth (angel with a flaming sword, Adam-ondi-Ahman and Zelph).

[Hestia]

Foxtrot is out of the thread.

[Monster]

Your statement is very short sighted. Some day when you have a better view of things, you will see that Joseph Smith's revelations were of eternal value to humankind.

A child, who's parent refuses to allow a diet of candy, may think that the parent is just being mean. But when that child grow to maturity and has children of his own, will see the wisdom in a balanced diet.

Marvin

True but a little candy never hurt anyone. It adds sweetness to an otherwise bland diet.

[todd520]

what practical knowledge did God reveal to Joseph?

Revelation boils down to mostly policy about the behavioral does and dont's

Surely you jest!

Were you expecting quantum physics should have been revealed by God to JS?

Faith and religion have always been about behavior.

[Monster]

No we can not agree that 99.9% is close enough. Science does not agree with this either. If 99.9% was close enough for the measurement of gravity as a law of physics then 1 in every 1000 objects on earth with be displaying some form of aberrant behavior when it came to adhering to the law of gravity.

Sciences claims are much stronger than 99.9% accurate. Though also not measured in terms of statistical failure vs. success. The claim of a scientific principal adhered to as "law" is that it has yet to be dis-proven. Not that in the last 1000 tests it only failed once. But that in the last x tests it has never failed. Still science realizes that such a proposition can not definitively claim that such a law will never fail. Is is logically impossible to claim that one can perform every test in a universe as complex and vast as ours. The concern with you post about science and fact is that it demonstrates a view of science and fact that even true scientists would not share. Science is not concerned with "fact" in the sense of immutable irrevocable law. It is concerned with balanced inquiry in an attempt to better understand the conditions as they are observed. Science can never prove something true. It can only ever show that something has yet to be proven false.

The key to science is the recognition that even the most basic assessments and laws need to be constantly revisited and retested. Such a principal of inquiry is not at odds with the development and refinement of religious faith/knowledge.

When science stops testing even the most foundational understandings of the universe is the moment it stops being good science. I think the same is true of religious belief. The we need to constantly engage in inquiry around our religion and statements of faith.

OK I agree with your point. I have just been trying to say that as we accumulate knowledge we at some point accept it as a fact. I am not claiming absolute knowledge or authority. I am just saying when the evidence gets to a certain point we have to take it seriously. It does not mean it can not change or grow. It is just a fact as we know it so far. But if you say nothing is truly a fact and therefore subject to interpretation I see nothing but chaos with everyone running around with their own facts. We have to agree on some level what is going to be accepted as reality.

Perhaps this is where science and religion separate. Science says this is what I know so far but it could change. Religion on some things tends to say this is absolute and will not change.

[Monster]

Surely you jest!

Where you expecting quantum physics should have been revealed?

Faith and religion have always been about behavior.

Well actually yes, some practical knowledge to make life for everyone better would be nice. I do not see a problem with God helping us out a little bit.

So if faith and religion is about behavior that is OK but every religion seems to have a somewhat different take on what is acceptable behavior. Not very helpful. The secularist would say good behavior boils down to the concept of doing no harm to conscious creatures. I think that is a good guidline and it did not require God to come up with it.

[todd520]

Well actually yes, some practical knowledge to make life for everyone better would be nice. I do not see a problem with God helping us out a little bit.

So if faith and religion is about behavior that is OK but every religion seems to have a somewhat different take on what is acceptable behavior. Not very helpful. The secularist would say good behavior boils down to the concept of doing no harm to conscious creatures. I think that is a good guidline and it did not require God to come up with it.

Remember the direction from Christ to love your neighbor as yourself?

Although the different religions are not the same, they usually do share the Golden Rule

Following this rule goes far beyond your secularist concept of "doing no harm"

I believe nothing improves our lives more than how we treat one another, that is why religion is so practical and so important

[thesometimesaint]

Gravity is an undisputed fact. The theory(explanation) behind the fact is subject to change.

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps this is where science and religion separate. Science says this is what I know so far but it could change. Religion on some things tends to say this is absolute and will not change.

But isn't that case by case based on personal approach.

If one were to profess a strong tendency towards science it does not mean they are willing to accept new ideas and change their views. Just as being a person of religious belief does not mean they are unwilling to change ideas when dealing with new data.

I went to school in a solar system with Pluto as a planet. Things change. There are groups of people within science that are arguing for the inclusion of Pluto. They are unwilling to change their views.

There are groups within all fields, religion and science, that have a difficult time adopting to changes in evidence.

[Bikeemikey]

Gravity is an undisputed fact. The theory(explanation) behind the fact is subject to change.

That something is a fact does not mean that science can or does claim that there will never be aberrations or instances where it does not hold. So what does it mean for something to be a "fact" in science is really the question.

Fact in terms of science has a different meaning to fact as used by everyday people.

As science continues to look at quantum level phenomena we are seeing more and more instances of matter behaving at variance with the laws of physics as they have been established through historical scientific observation. Even "facts" such as gravity are beginning to have a relative context rather than universally applicable law.

[Calm]

Perhaps "facts will rule" about the same time we start giving each other polygraph tests (if they ever come up with scientifically valid ones that is) to establish if we are really in love, etc.

[paulpatter]

='44Foxtrot' timestamp='1296996735' post='1208970957' . . . God has never revealed to man any useful new knowledge, of any kind, whatsoever. That is, there is no new knowledge contained in any the scriptures, preaching, or revelations of theistic religion that was not already known, or could have already been known, without supernatural assistance to humans when the scripture or revelation was written or revealed.

Perhaps it's just me, but your last phrase ("without supernatural. . . .") seems to invalidate the claim you make in your first sentence; i.e., "God has never revealed to man any useful knowledge, of any kind [emphasis added], whatsoever." Three questions: 1) What is your assessment of the Ten Commandments? 2) In connection with 1), why is knowledge revealed by means of "supernatural assistance" axiomatically discountable? 3) Why do you limit the acquisition of knowledge by using the modifier "objective"?

You mention Joseph Smith. Do you think the Word of Wisdom gave humankind valuable knowledge in an age when relatively little was known about the harm tobacco and liquor inflict on the body? Did Joseph Smith acquire that knowledge in a laboratory or by reading a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

[thesometimesaint]

Bikeemikey:

IIRC There are just two place where the measurement of gravity falls apart. At the Quantum level where is it incredibly hard to measure. I'm not sure it even exists at that level, probably overwhelmed by the Strong Nuclear Force, but it might. The second is at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole where it is essentially everything.

[stYro]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea. Ultimately some ideas turn out correct some may not, but the more evidence the more broadly the theory is accepted.

Just speaking for myself here and no one else, seems to me one's highest loyalty should be to the truth, without regard for the institution it comes from. Indeed I think it's possible that different belief systems are closer to the truth in different areas.

I won't accept something that doesn't sound right to me just because an authority figure (religious or scientific) says so; I'll make my best judgment based on the information available to me, and if it becomes apparent that I'm wrong then I'll change my mind. And if that authority figure discourages skeptical inquiry, his credibility is reduced.

stYro

[LDS Guy 1986]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea. Ultimately some ideas turn out correct some may not, but the more evidence the more broadly the theory is accepted. If you look at evolution for example, it has been established in scientific circles that it has moved from theory to fact. 50 Years ago in the church I would say hardly anyone believed in evolution. Now many more members have come to accept it and try and incorporate it into their beliefs. As the understanding and facts piled up rational minds had to accept it at least to some degree. The same can be said for the age of the earth and other scientifically proven ideas.

So as time goes on religion will be more and more relegated to only being able to defend those things that are not provable by scientific methods, faith, the existence of God and such. Some will always hold on to beliefs that are contrary to the facts but over time facts tend to win the day.

Whether it be scientific, historical, or anything else at what point do the facts out weigh faith and force you to change your belief? Is it when you can connect the dots so to speak and start to see the big picture, or do you hold out to the point that it must be starring you in the face hitting you with a club before you accept the facts as the actual truth.

Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

Why would a religion change it's core beliefs because the current trend of men says this is a FACT?

A religion's doctrine are based on the eternal truths of God, things he revealed to man through his various prophets (at least this is how it is for the three Abrahamic Religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). These teachings are taken as the word of God and unchangeable since Gos is unchangeable and all knowing.

Why then would someone that believes these things to be eternal truth, replace them with the educated guess of a man?

Scientists that speak of Facts as if there are infinite lack basic understanding of the Scientific Method. Science never proves anythings, all it does is give empirical evidence that supports that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. If an experiment is done in the proper setting and recorded in the proper manner and follows ones hypothesis, once can present a theory. If many more scientists test this theory in other experiments and come to the same conclusion it is accepted as scientific law.

Scientific law though is not written in stone though, it does change as new things are discovered and tested with new technologies. 50 years ago scientific law said atoms were the smallest for of matter, then we found protons, electrons, and neutrons and the law changed. Then not to long ago we discovered that protons, electrons, and neutrons are made up of sub atomic partials called quarks.

Scientific law is subject to constant revision, there is no enternal scientific law, since no one has ever tested any scientific law (nor can they given the infinite size of the universe) in every condition that can be presented in the universe.

So seeing that scientific law is far from the eternal truths of the Gospel, why would anyone expect a person to abandon the core doctrine of God for the imperfect and constantly changing best educated guess of man?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Just speaking for myself here and no one else, seems to me one's highest loyalty should be to the truth, without regard for the institution it comes from. Indeed I think it's possible that different belief systems are closer to the truth in different areas.

I won't accept something that doesn't sound right to me just because an authority figure (religious or scientific) says so; I'll make my best judgment based on the information available to me, and if it becomes apparent that I'm wrong then I'll change my mind. And if that authority figure discourages skeptical inquiry, his credibility is reduced.

stYro

This is a very good course of action, "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good" (2 Thessalonians 5:21).

As Christians we know that nothing of man is perfect, it all must be proven by the eternal standard of truth which is the scriptures. All things that are good we should hold to and all things that are not good we should reject.

[Walden]

You mention Joseph Smith. Do you think the Word of Wisdom gave humankind valuable knowledge in an age when relatively little was known about the harm tobacco and liquor inflict on the body? Did Joseph Smith acquire that knowledge in a laboratory or by reading a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Actually, Joseph Smith was not the first to promote temperance, nor was the LDS church the first religion to embrace it. Temperance associations had been formed in America as far back as 1789, and they spread quickly throughout the northeast. In fact, the American Temperance Society had been formed in 1826, years before Joseph Smith's Word of Wisdom was revealed. This movement towards abstaining from alcohol was started and established long before Joseph Smith gave the Word of Wisdom edict. So , no he didn't need scientific journals, he just took a page from the temparance movement that had been established long before his Word of Wisdom edict.

[Duncan]

Actually, Joseph Smith was not the first to promote temperance, nor was the LDS church the first religion to embrace it. Temperance associations had been formed in America as far back as 1789, and they spread quickly throughout the northeast. In fact, the American Temperance Society had been formed in 1826, years before Joseph Smith's Word of Wisdom was revealed. This movement towards abstaining from alcohol was started and established long before Joseph Smith gave the Word of Wisdom edict. So , no he didn't need scientific journals, he just took a page from the temparance movement that had been established long before his Word of Wisdom edict.

I think you are putting experiences in Joseph Smith's life that never happened, didn't he say that he got the idea when he prayed about it? I could see if he got the idea if attended a temperance rally or something but I apparently he didn't

[Walden]

I think you are putting experiences in Joseph Smith's life that never happened, didn't he say that he got the idea when he prayed about it? I could see if he got the idea if attended a temperance rally or something but I apparently he didn't

I put no such experiences in Joseph's life. I just cringe whenever I hear mormons proclaiming how prophetic Joseph Smith was with the Word of Wisdom, as if he was the first person on the planet to ever teach temperance, or the first religious leader to ever do such.

Joseph said that he got a lot of his ideas after praying about them. However, that argument only applies if you believe everything that Jospeh said. I am not such a person.

And why would he have to attend a temperance rally in order to get this idea? The fact is the northeast (which includes New York) was a hotbed of temperance activities and movements in the early 19th century. He wouldn't have to attend an actual temperance rally to know of it's existence. Just as I don't have a Facebook account, not have I ever visited Facebook, I do know of Facebook and the general premise of it. Likewise, I don't think that it would be a groundbreaking idea that Joseph, who proclaimed that he visited many different religions during his quest for the one true church, would have come across the idea of temperance espoused by many of the revival churches that made their way through upstate New York at the time.

[Calm]

I think you are putting experiences in Joseph Smith's life that never happened, didn't he say that he got the idea when he prayed about it?

IIRC his wife's complaining about the foul environment being left behind from the School of the Prophet gatherings was the trigger for Joseph seeking out the Lord's Will on the matter.

[Duncan]

I put no such experiences in Joseph's life. I just cringe whenever I hear mormons proclaiming how prophetic Joseph Smith was with the Word of Wisdom, as if he was the first person on the planet to ever teach temperance, or the first religious leader to ever do such.

Joseph said that he got a lot of his ideas after praying about them. However, that argument only applies if you believe everything that Jospeh said. I am not such a person.

And why would he have to attend a temperance rally in order to get this idea? The fact is the northeast (which includes New York) was a hotbed of temperance activities and movements in the early 19th century. He wouldn't have to attend an actual temperance rally to know of it's existence. Just as I don't have a Facebook account, not have I ever visited Facebook, I do know of Facebook and the general premise of it. Likewise, I don't think that it would be a groundbreaking idea that Joseph, who proclaimed that he visited many different religions during his quest for the one true church, would have come across the idea of temperance espoused by many of the revival churches that made their way through upstate New York at the time.

I am not aware of any statement made by Joseph Smith ascribing the WOW to the Temperance movement it is possible that the two coincided with each other. This happaned with Mary and Elizabeth having Jesus and John the Baptist without awareness of the other's pregnancy, as you know. I know the two are completely unrelated by hey. I think Joseph had to come to his own ownership of the idea rather then cutting and pasting from other religions without much thought.