Why Does Everything Need Evidence Now?

[Mariner]

That makes three in a row, Log.

Do you have anything substantive to say on the issue?

Deep down do you actually agree with me as to the silliness of belief held in the face of contrary evidence and are just too embarrassed to say so?

[epiginosko]

I came to this forum to have thoughtful, intellectual, and reasonable academic conversations. But instead I see childish behavior? Mormon Dialogue & Discussion should be above the petty provocations, shouldn't it?

I don't mind when others have a different point of view from mine - that is what makes conversation interesting. However, I am less than 40 posts in and I am already calling for civility. And it seems to me that the lack of civility is coming from just a small handful of members. I see quite a few locked threads as a result. It would be nice to keep this conversation going, but this thread will likely be locked too if it continues to devolve into condescension.

Edited April 27, 2012 by epiginosko

[Log]

Do you have anything substantive to say on the issue?

Well, the issue I have been commenting on - your arrogance marinated in triumphalism - really needs no further comment from me.

Please, continue illustrating by your conduct how your outlook is functionally superior to anyone else's. You are, after all, the light-bringer, and we, after all, are the children who believe old wives' tales, and stand in the way of progress.

You are out of the thread and soon to be out of the board if you don't clean up your act.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

For example, which of the following religious beliefs would you say were "true".

- God created the Earth and every living species found upon it in six days

- Mary the mother of Jesus experienced immaculate conception having been somehow impregnated by God the Father.

- God flooded the entire world to wipe out humankind except for 8 lucky folks and a breeding pair of each species of land animal on the planet.

- Adam and Eve were the first humans and lived in a Garden near Daviss County MO less than 10,000 years ago.

- Trailing behind the comet Hale-Bopp are spaceships that will take Heavens Gate adherents on board and safely away from the wicked Earth allowing them to move to the next level in the evolution of man.

- God commanded that, in order to reach the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, a man had to hold the higher Priesthood and enter in to the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage.

- The Galactic Lord Xenu brought millions of his people to Earth and stacked them round volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs. The spiritual influences of the unfortunate space travelers remains on the Earth and one must be a member of the Church of Scientology and pay money to the Church to get cleared of the influence of these entities.

- One must pay tithing to the LDS Church equal to 10% of one's increase in order to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.

- Transubstantiation: the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

1. LDS believe it was six time periods.

2. We don't know the process, But yes The Son is the literal Son of God.

3. Some believe it. I and Hugh Nibley don't.

4. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. No. Man, as God defines him Yes. Though probably not Daviss County Mo.

5. Not in LDS belief.

6. If we are so commanded. Fortunately no one alive today is under such commandment, nor was every member of the Church in BY day.

7. Not in LDS belief. Scientologists can believe anything they want. Any connection between scientology and LDS is nebulas at best, and it is baiting.

8. No. Children under 8 are not required to tithe, and if they die they automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom.

9. Not in LDS belief.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

For example, which of the following religious beliefs would you say were "true".

- God created the Earth and every living species found upon it in six days

- Mary the mother of Jesus experienced immaculate conception having been somehow impregnated by God the Father.

- God flooded the entire world to wipe out humankind except for 8 lucky folks and a breeding pair of each species of land animal on the planet.

- Adam and Eve were the first humans and lived in a Garden near Daviss County MO less than 10,000 years ago.

- Trailing behind the comet Hale-Bopp are spaceships that will take Heavens Gate adherents on board and safely away from the wicked Earth allowing them to move to the next level in the evolution of man.

- God commanded that, in order to reach the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, a man had to hold the higher Priesthood and enter in to the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage.

- The Galactic Lord Xenu brought millions of his people to Earth and stacked them round volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs. The spiritual influences of the unfortunate space travelers remains on the Earth and one must be a member of the Church of Scientology and pay money to the Church to get cleared of the influence of these entities.

- One must pay tithing to the LDS Church equal to 10% of one's increase in order to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.

- Transubstantiation: the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

1. LDS believe it was six time periods.

2. We don't know the process, But yes The Son is the literal Son of God.

3. Some believe it. I and Hugh Nibley don't.

4. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. No. Man, as God defines him Yes. Though probably not Daviss County Mo.

5. Not in LDS belief.

6. If we are so commanded. Fortunately no one alive today is under such commandment, nor was every member of the Church in BY day.

7. Not in LDS belief. Scientologists can believe anything they want. Any connection between scientology and LDS is nebulas at best, and it is baiting.

8. No. Children under 8 are not required to tithe, and if they die they automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom.

9. Not in LDS belief.

So, as I understand your response, you consider most LDS beliefs to be true, although the true versions of these beliefs may not be shared by all LDS and some true beliefs of the everlasting gospel may actually have an expiration date.

You consider all of the non-LDS religious beliefs listed to be not true.

If I didn't get this right, please let me know.

Why is it that few religionists can agree on what "true" religious beliefs and principles really are, even within a given religion, let alone among religions?

Does this really give you confidence that any religion (let along the LDS religion) has it right. If so, why.

This would seem to be a real problem with religion when viewed against the fact that pretty much everyone engaged in science can agree on the basic scientific principles. In fact regardless of the kind of science in which one is engaged, rather than quarrel with one another (as is common among different religions) scientists of different disciplines (as you know) generally seek to support and learn from one another.

[Mariner]

Log,

In an previous version of your Post #53, you stated something to the effect that some of my less inhibited brethren advocated the extermination of religionists.

You apparently then thought better of the statement and edited it out. Would you care to elaborate?

[wenglund]

Just so you don't misunderstand, what I am today is someone who does not need to continually try to rationalize the the illogical and unfounded (but nonetheless canonized) beliefs of their religion with the abundant objective evidence that continues to accumulate every day contrary to those beliefs. Without the associated intellectual dishonesty and cog dis to contend with, one can be healthier, happier, and free to realize their potential to understand the world as it really is, based on objective reproducible evidence. As a consequence, one can better understand how to best contribute to the world.

It strikes me as somewhat oxymoronic, if not also naive, to suggest that narrowing down and closing the mind to non-objective evidence and methodologies may somehow result in superior health, happiness, and freedom to realize one's potential to understand the world as it really is, and best contribute thereto. As I see it, much of health and happiness and contributions in the world are tied to the "reality" of human interpersonal relationships, which don't fit all that well with objectivity. But, that may just be how I see it.

However, I respect that such is now your newfound faith/religion. The best to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

So, as I understand your response, you consider most LDS beliefs to be true, although the true versions of these beliefs may not be shared by all LDS and some true beliefs of the everlasting gospel may actually have an expiration date.

You consider all of the non-LDS religious beliefs listed to be not true.

If I didn't get this right, please let me know.

Why is it that few religionists can agree on what "true" religious beliefs and principles really are, even within a given religion, let alone among religions?

Does this really give you confidence that any religion (let along the LDS religion) has it right. If so, why.

This would seem to be a real problem with religion when viewed against the fact that pretty much everyone engaged in science can agree on the basic scientific principles. In fact regardless of the kind of science in which one is engaged, rather than quarrel with one another (as is common among different religions) scientists of different disciplines (as you know) generally seek to support and learn from one another.

1. Doctrine of the Church is true, every LDS(individual) interpretation of that doctrine is not true. The expiration date is when the Church through common consent says it is.

2. I didn't say they were untrue, or true, only that the Church doesn't have them as doctrine.

3. I can't answer for the Church, only what I believe. However I'm very close to what the Church says is doctrine.

4. I can't answer for what other faiths believe. To the best of my ability I teach what my church teaches, and hope others will join the Church. But that is up to them.

5. I have confidence in God, and what he tells me. So far the Church and I totally agree on doctrine. While in theory it is possible for us to someday to disagree. That is getting further and further remote.

6. I don't have a problem with science per say. You honestly think there is no disagreements between scientists? The scientists I know disagree all the time. We're constantly argueing and counter argueing passionately.

Edited April 27, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[epiginosko]

Deep down do you actually agree with me as to the silliness of belief held in the face of contrary evidence...?

Mariner, I know you specifically aimed this at Log. However, I would also like to respond to it because I think it is a valid question.

I mentioned earlier in this thread a statement from Terryl Givens, Professor of literature and religion at University of Richmond and author of many books on the subject of Mormonism, who in an interview about faith said:

"The point that I try to make is that we all understand what physical compulsion is. We all understand how incompatible that is with human freedom. But it's my belief that intellectual compulsion works in an analogous way. You are not free to believe or disbelieve the law of gravity. It's there. The evidence is so abundant that you are intellectually compelled to accept it. So, as a result, there is no virtue that attaches to your belief in that law. Similarly, if I were to offer you a million dollars to believe in the Easter Bunny, you wouldn't be able to do it. So, in both of these cases, belief seems to operate outside of the moral sphere. We don't have control that we can exercise to believe or disbelieve. But what I'm saying is that faith is what operates or unfolds in a middle ground between the compulsion to affirm and the compulsion to deny. And I believe that God has structured our lives here on this earth in such a way that when it comes to those issues of eternal import, we have to be free to affirm or to deny. And, therefore, there has to be a balance of evidence both for the veracity of the Gospel and against it. It's essential to God's divine purposes and to the flowering of freedom itself, I believe, that there has to be compelling reasons to reject the Book of Mormon, to reject Joseph as a prophet, to reject the existence of God himself. But they have to exist alongside compelling reasons to affirm those things. Only in those circumstances can we call upon our will and choose to believe or not to believe. And I think in those moments our choice reflects the most important things about us; what we love, what we choose to affirm."

Hearing this was sort of a "light bulb" moment for me. It philosophically makes sense to me. What are your thoughts?

Edited April 27, 2012 by epiginosko

[thesometimesaint]

epiginosko:

Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity(the explanation of how it works) is subject to change. God is a fact(though at this point nonfalsifiable). Religion(the explanation of God) is subject to change.

[Calm]

I came to this forum to have thoughtful, intellectual, and reasonable academic conversations. But instead I see childish behavior? Mormon Dialogue & Discussion should be above the petty provocations, shouldn't it?

I don't mind when others have a different point of view from mine - that is what makes conversation interesting. However, I am less than 40 posts in and I am already calling for civility. And it seems to me that the lack of civility is coming from just a small handful of members. I see quite a few locked threads as a result. It would be nice to keep this conversation going, but this thread will likely be locked too if it continues to devolve into condescension.

I hope you are using the "report" function when you come across less than civil comments. The mods are quite good, but they need our help in keeping up with incivility as they don't read all the threads on their own. They do just ban posters from threads that are still productive, allowing the threads to stay open, they lock threads that have degraded to the personal stuff. When you report, you can tell them your desire for a thread to stay open, that might help.

[epiginosko]

epiginosko:

Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity(the explanation of how it works) is subject to change. God is a fact(though at this point nonfalsifiable). Religion(the explanation of God) is subject to change.

I am personally not a fan of the "nonfalsifiable" argument for the existence of God. I don't believe that it holds much weight. I would have to side with Richard Dawkin's argument (as arrogant as I believe it is) that you likewise can't "falsify" the existence of a flying spaghetti monster or invisible unicorns.

The challenge then is to examine the scientific laws of the universe which we presently understand and ask whether or not the universe would look any different if there was no God. I think an honest academic would be inclined to say that, based on our present understanding, it seems that the universe would look exactly the same as it does now.

This, to me, is why belief and faith, as Professor Givens expressed, "unfolds in a middle ground between the compulsion to affirm and the compulsion to deny." It makes sense to me that it must be this way in order for our free agency to be effective, and that what we choose to believe is as much based on our values as it is anything else.

[Calm]

Mary the mother of Jesus experienced immaculate conception having been somehow impregnated by God the Father.

Just a side note, Mariner, the Immaculate Conception relates to the birth of Mary, not the birth of Jesus.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Falsifiabilty is the nature of science. We have to take the good with the bad in that sense. I believe in God, and have no problem with him, but that doesn't mean I can prove or disprove him by using the Scientific Method. All due deferense to Mr. Dawkins there are a great many things that science can't prove. But that hardly means they don't exist. I can't prove my mother loved me. Only that her acttons towards me were consistant with someone who did. For Scifi buffs, all this might just be part of The Matrix. I don't know how I'd prove that either.

I don't know as how the world/universe would look any different if there was no God, and I know of no way to prove it in any event.

Someday the conflicts between true religion and true science will be resolved. I don't believe that will happen anytime soon. In the mean time Trust in God but keep your hands on the steering wheel.

Edited April 27, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[epiginosko]

Falsifiabilty is the nature of science. We have to take the good with the bad in that sense. I believe in God, and have no problem with him, but that doesn't mean I can prove or disprove him by using the Scientific Method. All due deferense to Mr. Dawkins there are a great many things that science can't prove. But that hardly means they don't exist.

I agree.

I don't know as how the world/universe would look any different if there was no God, and I know of no way to prove it in any event.

Yes, it is purely a matter of speculation. Given what we currently (and the key word is currently) understand about the laws of physics and how particles form matter, we can conceive of a universe created by entirely natural means. However, you and I would both probably agree that this doesn't absolutely exclude a Divine Author (who I personally believe also operates under the same natural laws).

Someday the conflicts between true religion and true science will be resolved. I don't believe that will happen anytime soon. In the mean time Trust in God but keep your hands on the steering wheel.

I agree. And I'm sure you can see that trusting in God is a choice of conscious will which is based on our values. From there, we are supported with compelling reasons to affirm our belief (personal confirmation and inspiration, miraculous events, the witness and testimony of others, etc) in spite of reasonable arguments against it.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

[Log]

In fact regardless of the kind of science in which one is engaged, rather than quarrel with one another (as is common among different religions) scientists of different disciplines (as you know) generally seek to support and learn from one another.

Well, one might guess that scientists are generally free from the poop-flinging behavior that seems to characterize any other human endeavor... except, they aren't.

In 1953 at a meeting of the Geological Society of London, the famous Piltdown Man was shown to be a hoax. It was not only a hoax, we are now told, but it was such an extremely clumsy hoax that it is hard to see how it ever fooled anybody. Only one thing can explain the solemn acceptance and high honors accorded this battered skull by the highest authorities for over half a century, and that is an overpowering desire, a fierce determination to accept as genuine whatever looked promising in an area where evidence was badly needed. The news has now leaked out that the November meeting "broke up into a series of fist fights, so strong was the feeling on both sides of the question. The fracas resulted in the expulsion of several members of the dignified scientific body."9 "Strong feeling," says the news dispatch. It was wishful thinking that saw priceless evidence in the Piltdown skull and then defended it with a passion that did not draw the line at bloody noses and black eyes. Where is the cool, impartial, objective detachment which we have been taught is the badge and authority of science? Well, there is nothing wrong with behaving as average human beings—unless, of course, one claims, as these men do, to have risen above that sort of thing. I recall to mind certain professors of natural science who could not give a lecture without taking potshots at foolish and gullible people who accepted things on faith. These men with monotonous persistence fire millions of rounds at the opposition, but when the opposition proposes to present a few of their duds for our inspection, they instantly appeal to our humanity and insist that it is not sporting to advertise the chinks in their armor.

Now, as someone who has publicly denied any rational basis for warranted design inferences, perhaps you might look askance at the claim that scientific (or any other kind) of fraud is objectively detectable - yet it is.

I don't care enough to look it all up, but it appears that non-replicability, if not outright fraud, plagues the so-called "soft sciences," as well as theft, and plagiarism.

[thesometimesaint]

I might say that the Piltdown man was a denial of one of the Articles of Faith in the Scientific Method.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

So, as I understand your response, you consider most LDS beliefs to be true, although the true versions of these beliefs may not be shared by all LDS and some true beliefs of the everlasting gospel may actually have an expiration date.

You consider all of the non-LDS religious beliefs listed to be not true.

If I didn't get this right, please let me know.

Why is it that few religionists can agree on what "true" religious beliefs and principles really are, even within a given religion, let alone among religions?

Does this really give you confidence that any religion (let along the LDS religion) has it right. If so, why.

This would seem to be a real problem with religion when viewed against the fact that pretty much everyone engaged in science can agree on the basic scientific principles. In fact regardless of the kind of science in which one is engaged, rather than quarrel with one another (as is common among different religions) scientists of different disciplines (as you know) generally seek to support and learn from one another.

1. Doctrine of the Church is true, every LDS(individual) interpretation of that doctrine is not true. The expiration date is when the Church through common consent says it is.

2. I didn't say they were untrue, or true, only that the Church doesn't have them as doctrine.

3. I can't answer for the Church, only what I believe. However I'm very close to what the Church says is doctrine.

4. I can't answer for what other faiths believe. To the best of my ability I teach what my church teaches, and hope others will join the Church. But that is up to them.

5. I have confidence in God, and what he tells me. So far the Church and I totally agree on doctrine. While in theory it is possible for us to someday to disagree. That is getting further and further remote.

This implies that you believe that God communicates directly with you. Is that your belief?

6. I don't have a problem with science per say. You honestly think there is no disagreements between scientists? The scientists I know disagree all the time. We're constantly argueing and counter argueing passionately.

Hope I didn't leave the impression that I believe scientists agree all the time. Certainly they do not. Sometimes they even take their disagreements to the open literature and duke it out for years. More often than not however, the data needed to settle the disagreement comes along and a consensus is established.

(An example here would be the observations of the apparent shift in star positions when the light from these stars passed near the sun on its way to Earth and could be observed during a solar eclipse. As you know, Einstein won that one. His early views on quantum mechanics and what he termed "spooky action at a distance" eventually demonstrated that he was not infallible, however.)

Progress would be impaired if scientists did agree all the time. What I said was that, in general, scientists do not engage in quarrels (especially for centuries over minor and irrelevant issues). Just think about the highly civilized manner in which the relatively longstanding (years not centuries) disagreement between Leonard Susskind et al., and Stephen Hawking regarding the loss of information in black holes was resolved.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Mariner

[KevinG]

This thread needs a primer in the difference between eternal truths and temporal practices. Both can coincide but they are not the same thing.

For example we can be commanded to tithe, which is related to the eternal truth approaching cooperation, consecration or the idea that gods are one in all things (ask Plato perhaps he can identify the form) but does not make tithing the eternal truth- just our mortal experience approaching knowledge of the truth.

Mariner's list does not contain eternal truths. It lists policies and beliefs that are our mortal practices and beliefs - some of which help us approach pure knowledge and eternal truth.

[epiginosko]

It seems to me that most scientists are genuinely excited when new data is discovered (even when it contradicts their prior conceptions), however many people of faith feel threatened by new data which contradicts prior conceptions (which I believe is unnecessary).

[KevinG]

Ancient astronomers argued about the position and nature of the heavens, but that did not negate the existence of those heavens.

Just as they struggled with what knowledge they had and added unto it by applying true scientific principles, we can come closer to eternal truth by living the commandments of God and seeking to learn more from our experience and revelation. (D&C 93)

[KevinG]

It seems to me that most scientists are genuinely excited when new data is discovered (even when it contradicts their prior conceptions), however many people of faith feel threatened by new data which contradicts prior conceptions (which I believe is unnecessary).

It is a universal fear of changing our assumptions or leaving familiar territory. The Hobbit in your avatar would understand.

[Calm]

most scientists are genuinely excited when new data is discovered (even when it contradicts their prior conceptions)

I am not sure this is a valid assumption due to how long at times it has taken for new ideas to be accepted by the mainstream.

[Mariner]

Well, one might guess that scientists are generally free from the poop-flinging behavior that seems to characterize any other human endeavor... except, they aren't.

Now, as someone who has publicly denied any rational basis for warranted design inferences, perhaps you might look askance at the claim that scientific (or any other kind) of fraud is objectively detectable - yet it is.

I don't care enough to look it all up, but it appears that non-replicability, if not outright fraud, plagues the so-called "soft sciences," as well as theft, and plagiarism.

Don't disagree with what you have posted here. There have been grand hoaxes as well as honest mistakes in science that have gained the attention of the public over the years.

Here is the difference between science and unfounded belief: within a decade or so of the time the mistakes were made in science, regardless of whether it was Piltdown man or Cold Fusion from BYU, these mistakes were rectified. I doubt that there is a professional scientist or scientifically literate individual who believes in either today.

On the other hand, some180 years after the mistakes were made, we have Apostles of the LDS Church still claiming the objective truth of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. From these books they still preach the truth of the global flood of Noah, separation of the continents of the Eastern and Western Hemisphere less than 10,000 years ago, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and a great deal of other such falsifiable (and falsified) nonsense.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Mariner