Religion Breeds Irrationality

[44Foxtrot]

I think it's just bigotry. Invoking Scientology is just a rationalization to make an excuse for said bigotry. Everyone in the leadership of the Church has a serious moral character flaw, huh? Really? Because of Scientology. LOL Yeah, that's great reasoning.

Mordecai,

It's worse than that.

Either they really believe it and thereby demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills and judgement, or they do not really believe it, but are nonetheless willing to state otherwise.

Your choice.

[Deborah]

Either they really believe it and thereby demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills and judgement, or they do not really believe it, but are nonetheless willing to state otherwise.

Elder Russell M Nelson is a very well-known and respected heart surgeon. but I guess it dosn't take good critical thinking skills or judgment to be one of the best heart surgeons.

Yes, Mormons don't do critical thinking so I wonder how these men and women managed to succeed: Mormons scientists

And how did Utah become the top state in producing scientists? Utah

But we're all a bunch of hicks according to the very intelligent and successful foxtrot.

[44Foxtrot]

Now that's just name-calling.

Or does 44 actually hold that there is some "scientifically" arrived-at set of criteria upon which all agree, establishing what a "cult" is.

USU "Thinks 44 doesn't own a dictionary" 78

I did not state that there was a scientifically arrived at set of criteria for determining cult attributes (although there may well be such criteria). There are a generally accepted set of attributes that are used to determine the number and degree of cult-like characteristics exhibited by an organization.

If you are interested in the characteristics of cults that are recognized by those in the business you can take a look at two books by Stephan Hassan:

Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves (2000)

Combating Mind Control: The #1 Best Selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults (1988).

I find it of interest that the Mormon, Unification, and Scientology Churches are the only ones with links on Hassan's commercial website.

[USU78]

If you are interested in the characteristics of cults that are recognized by those in the business

It's a fine, fair choice of words you made there . . . and it's telling indeed that you put it in commercial terms.

'cause I do, too.

And for good cause, too.

[TAO]

I did not state that there was a scientifically arrived at set of criteria for determining cult attributes (although there may well be such criteria). There are a generally accepted set of attributes that are used to determine the number and degree of cult-like characteristics exhibited by an organization.

If you are interested in the characteristics of cults that are recognized by those in the business you can take a look at two books by Stephan Hassan:

Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves (2000)

Combating Mind Control: The #1 Best Selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults (1988).

I find it of interest that the Mormon, Unification, and Scientology Churches are the only ones with links on Hassan's commercial website.

Foxtrot, if I may, from Wikipedia of all things:

The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.^[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective. It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society.

The popular, derogatory sense of the word has no currency in academic studies of religions, where "cults" are subsumed under the neutral label of the "new religious movement", while academic sociology has partly adopted the popular meaning of the word.^[2][3][4]

So apparently, the study of religion, which would be classified under science, doesn't recognize the word 'cult' as it is used in that book, no?

[44Foxtrot]

Elder Russell M Nelson is a very well-known and respected heart surgeon. but I guess it dosn't take good critical thinking skills or judgment to be one of the best heart surgeons.

Yes, Mormons don't do critical thinking so I wonder how these men and women managed to succeed: Mormons scientists

And how did Utah become the top state in producing scientists? Utah

But we're all a bunch of hicks according to the very intelligent and successful foxtrot.

Deborah,

We have already established that there are successful and accomplished people in most religions. Whether or not there are successful Mormons is not the issue.

Why don't you address the question and explain how the fantastical narrative of Mormonism (Adan ondi Ahman, Zelph, Book of Mormon, Kolob, Book of Abraham, polygamy, polyandry, angels with flaming swords, God was once a man, etc.) is qualitatively different from the fantastical narrative of Scientology (Xenu, Thetans, audits, etc.) ?

Simply stating that you believe one and not the other is not a satisfactory response.

[Mars]

Actually, Hassan has quite a few links. Mormons are under the 'M.'

There's even a section on how Mormons fit the cult profile, both explained by Mr. Hassan himself (in a youtube video that I was too lazy to watch) and bullet-list answer style from a former Mormon on the website.

There is Temple content on there, so I didn't paste a link.

44Foxtrot's claims are interesting. I don't agree with them, but they're interesting.

[44Foxtrot]

It's a fine, fair choice of words you made there . . . and it's telling indeed that you put it in commercial terms.

'cause I do, too.

And for good cause, too.

Are claiming that cults do not really exist and that those who work in the areas of cult awareness, cult victim de-programming, etc. are simply running a scam?

[Mars]

Why don't you address the question and explain how the fantastical narrative of Mormonism (Adan ondi Ahman, Zelph, Book of Mormon, Kolob, Book of Abraham, polygamy, polyandry, angels with flaming swords, God was once a man, etc.) is qualitatively different from the fantastical narrative of Scientology (Xenu, Thetans, audits, etc.) ?

There was no claim of guilt-by-association in my post. Mormonism is not associated with Scientology and I am certainly not claiming that it is.

[Deborah]

Why don't you address the question and explain how the fantastical narrative of Mormonism (Adan ondi Ahman, Zelph, Book of Mormon, Kolob, Book of Abraham, polygamy, polyandry, angels with flaming swords, God was once a man, etc.) is qualitatively different from the fantastical narrative of Scientology (Xenu, Thetans, audits, etc.) ?

You really are hung up on this and I frankly don't give a fig about what scientology teaches. If some people find happieness and success in those beliefs who am I to find fault? After much studying and searching I found my answers in Mormonism and all the things you mention about Mormons are very rational to me, especially after reading the OT.

[USU78]

Are claiming that cults do not really exist and that those who work in the areas of cult awareness, cult victim de-programming, etc. are simply running a scam?

You're a smart guy.

I think you already know.

[Deborah]

We have already established that there are successful and accomplished people in most religions. Whether or not there are successful Mormons is not the issue.

And yet you continue to claim that Mormons lack critical thinking or judgment. But now you want to change the subject to something totally irrelevant to Mormonism.

[Mars]

I'm curious, 44Foxtrot, is there anything at all a theist can say about his/her belief in God that appears rational to you?

Is there any "I don't agree, but I respect you" common ground we can come to?

[44Foxtrot]

And yet you continue to claim that Mormons lack critical thinking or judgment. But now you want to change the subject to something totally irrelevant to Mormonism.

Deborah,

Please try reading some of my posts on this thread. I am not changing the subject at all.

I have stated, in several posts, that people who claim the veracity of fantastical. magical, unfounded narratives for which there is no supporting evidence, and overwhelming contrary evidence, lack either critical thinking skills and judgment, or integrity.

Again, your choice.

If you feel that this is a strawman argument or false choice, then you should be able to explain the qualitative differences between the fantastical Mormon narrative, (which I assume you do believe) and the fantastical Scientology narrative (which I assume you do not believe).

[TAO]

Hmm... I think we are getting into 'the cult of anti-cultism' XD.

[Mars]

and overwhelming contrary evidence

What contrary evidence is there for the existence of God?

[44Foxtrot]

You're a smart guy.

I think you already know.

Okay.

Heaven's Gate, Waco, and Jonestown never happened.

Check.

[44Foxtrot]

I'm curious, 44Foxtrot, is there anything at all a theist can say about his/her belief in God that appears rational to you?

Is there any "I don't agree, but I respect you" common ground we can come to?

Mars,

Thanks for your two posts and for raising two issues in which I am very interested. Have enjoyed the discussion this evening and will respond after I take care of a few chores.

[TAO]

Okay.

Heaven's Gate, Waco, and Jonestown never happened.

Check.

Neither did Haun's Mill.

When people treat other people badly, the result will be negative, no matter who is doing the bad treating.

It's our job to treat other people good, regardless of who they are.

[USU78]

Okay.

Heaven's Gate, Waco, and Jonestown never happened.

Check.

The Khmer Rouge. The Sovs vs. the Kulaks. Those zany Red Army kooks.

Hey! This is fun.

USU "For every 50 killed by religious nuts, I'll name 5,000 killed by irreligious nuts" 78

[Mordecai]

Mordecai,It's worse than that. Either they really believe it and thereby demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills and judgement, or they do not really believe it, but are nonetheless willing to state otherwise. Your choice.

It's WORSE, huh? Oh, you're so much better than Church leadership. Wow. You must be AWESOME to be in a position to judge them and look down on them for a lack of character. Dude, you're my hero. Really?

I'm going to say that it's your critical thinking that is at fault, not theirs. For starters, you seem to be an egomaniac. Very poor critical thinking.

[Stargazer]

Mordecai,

It's worse than that.

Either they really believe it and thereby demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills and judgement, or they do not really believe it, but are nonetheless willing to state otherwise.

Your choice.

I just think you like thinking of yourself as a Bright.

I think it is a sign of high intelligence to be able to hold two competing (indeed, even contradictory) thoughts in one's mind at the same time.

Although I am not an astrophysicist (nor do I play one on TV), astrophysics was once one of the career choices I considered. Had I in the end pursued astrophysics, there is no way that I could have been handicapped by both being an astrophysics and a believing Latter-day Saint. Neither would have stumbled over the other. You would not have found me gibbering in consternation over the question of how string theory could possibly be reconciled with the Angel Moroni's visitations with Joseph Smith. I can deduce from observations the probable nature of Hanny's Vorwerp without once being tripped up by my conviction that God is real and created the visible (and invisible Universe). I can gain a sudden insight about the nature of Man from reading Moses 1:39 without fear of any contradiction from the results of experiments with the Large Hadron Collider. These things simply do not intersect, except distructively in the minds of weaklings, causing virtual explosions driving them away from matters of faith via faulty reasoning.

My faith in God would not in the least have interfered with my career in science, except that certain mental midgets holding bigotted attitudes might argue against my taking or holding a position in an instutition or a company because I dared to challenge their smug conviction that there is no God. I say no interference because among other things there is no chance that a research paper I was preparing for publication in some journal would contain any citations from Scripture, unless somehow such a quote could provide a little dramatic effect -- in which case when talking about the future supernova explosion of Betelgeuse I might want to use as a headnote this verse from the Bhagavad Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one ..." If J. Robert Oppenheimer can be permitted such frivolity and still be regarded as one of the most important physicists to have ever lived, well then why can't I do the same. Regardless of whether Oppenheimer was a theist or not, who incidentally learned to read Sanskrit just so he could read the 'Gita in the original. Now there's a brain.

The thing is, the scriptures, despite their allegories of Creation, contain nothing that substantially contradict science anyway. For example, the order of creation as contained in Genesis follows in a fairly logical fashion, how this world and its life were in fact created. In Genesis, every other form of life, for example, was created before Man, the culmination. This is perfectly consistent with what is known in science as the rise of Man, who came forth late in the game. No doubt you can find things in the Bible, for instance, that are simply incorrect from a scientific viewpoint, but as anyone with a brain knows, the Bible is an imperfect work -- science itself is hardly immune from error, so why should the Bible be any different? We know darned well that God didn't come down with a magic pen to write it -- He passed whatever inspiration He provided through the imperfect heads of His chosen prophets. Biblical inerrantists notwithstanding.

But it is very clear to me, especially from remarks made by such luminaries as Richard Dawkins and you, 44Foxtrot, that despite any evidence to the contrary (which therefore makes it a leap of faith, based as it is on no evidence at all), that to admit that I hold religious convictions as ultimate truths is prima facie evidence that as a scientist I could not be anything other than a sham or a fake. Or untrustworthy.

Likewise, anyone who can stand up and claim with a straight face that the sun gets it's light from Kolob, that a common Egyptian funerary text created millennia after Abraham lived was written by the hand of Abraham, that God commanded Joseph Smith to engage in polyandry on pain of death by an angel's flaming sword, and that an angel provided Joseph Smith with ancient golden plates that were supposed to have contained an ancient record but, as it turned out, were completely ignored in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon, is certainly not an individual that most people, myself included, would trust or blindly follow.

This may or may not be completely typical of your arguments, but you seem to be quite fascinated by straw men. The Wizard of Oz one of your favorite movies, then? I kid.

Anyway, I'd like to see where it is said that the sun gets its light from Kolob. In the Book of Abraham, Kolob is mentioned as a standard of time-reckoning, but nowhere is it described as providing light to Sol.

The "common Egyptian funerary text" could not have been created "millenia after Abraham lived" because Abraham is traditionally believed to have lived between 1812 BCE and 1637 BCE, whereas two millenia after him would have put the date of that funerary text laughably around 300 AD. Where do you get the information for your polemics, anyway?

So, you think "God commanded Joseph Smith to engage in polyandry on pain of death by an angel's flaming sword", do you? I guess this is on a par with your other claims, because polyandry has to do with multiple husbands, whereas we seem to be mostly connected to the opposite, multiple wives. And as to whether or not Joseph was commanded to engage in it, well, you weren't there, and if you don't believe it happened that is your choice, but your disbelief doesn't make it a false report. It is what is was, your opinion notwithstanding -- it's not exactly a premise you can test scientifically. Which also applies to your opinion as to the translation of the Book of Mormon.

[TAO]

Anyway, I'd like to see where it is said that the sun gets its light from Kolob.

Fascimile 2, section 5;

Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

I remember though that BCSpace provided a most excellent solution - gravity! =D

At the time, I was thinking of a rather complex spiritual-physical matter conversion, but gravity works so much better that it's awesome!

[Stargazer]

Fascimile 2, section 5;

I remember though that BCSpace provided a most excellent solution - gravity! =D

At the time, I was thinking of a rather complex spiritual-physical matter conversion, but gravity works so much better that it's awesome!

OK, that's fair. I thought 44Foxtrot was just being sloppy in this case. Sorry Fox, it's been awhile since I have looked at the Facsimiles.

What I think is interesting here is that the explanatory text states that "it is said by the Egyptians." I suspect that one might regard it as a cop-out, but I don't regard this as anything other than hearsay. It is said by Aristotle (I think) that earthquakes are caused by strong winds in underground caverns. A reasonable proposition given what he knew, but wrong. Doesn't mean that Aristotle was wrong about other matters, necessarily.

As far as trying to come up with some sort of explanation (a la BCSpace's or your spiritual-physical matter conversion), I think this is rather like trying to justify Ptolemy's planetary epicycles in light of modern orbital theory.

Someone might refer to themselves as Adam's son, when Adam died four thousand years ago, and yet still not be stating a falsehood, but an allegory. I suspect this Kolob (why do I always want to type Kobol?) giving light to the sun is no more than that, an allegory of some kind.

[Deborah]

I have stated, in several posts, that people who claim the veracity of fantastical. magical, unfounded narratives for which there is no supporting evidence, and overwhelming contrary evidence, lack either critical thinking skills and judgment, or integrity.

And as I have stated how can you claim that people who are heart surgeons and scientists renowned in their fields lack either critical thinking, judgment or integrity because they also believe in God and in spiritual things.

The fact that you consider some of the things we believe as magical or unfounded or with no evidence is only an indication of your interpretation of these things. Many brilliant minds have considered the same things and embraced their faith.