Sacred vs Secular: What Difference Does it Make?

[Physics Guy]

"Some glide painlessly out. I understand them. A pay increase, an extra day each week, and no meetings!"

An unfortunate juxtaposition which makes Peterson appear sure that people leave the LDS church for mere convenience. Even if he's just making a joke, it's one of those nasty jokes that only someone with too little empathy would tell. And Peterson slips it into a post about a young suicide. What is this guy?

[Kenngo1969]

Physics Guy,

He's surely one of the most reprehensible, irredeemable, reprobate excuses for a [Ahem!] "human" being ever to walk the face of the earth.  I have it on good authority that even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of his home, and, although he once had a pet maggot, even the maggot found Professor Peterson's company so distasteful that it preferred death.

Now that we've formed opinions of Peterson, we needn't comment further.  Surely, he's not worthy of our continued attention.

[california boy]

I think that sacred and secular have two completely paradigms.  Secular ideas thrive on imperfection.  It is a search for truth.  As soon as something is proven wrong, it is easily discarded in favor of something that is closer to the truth.  Think of all of the dramatic shifts in the beliefs of science.  And think of all of the exploration of nuance ideas that have been explored with no fear of what that might lead to.  If tomorrow, a scientist could throw out the Law of Relativity, then his new theory would b touted as being a breakthrough in thought and understanding.  

Religion has a different paradigm.  It is much more black and white.  Good vs evil, God vs Satan, the Book of Mormon is true or it is false, Joseph Smith was a prophet or a fraud, polygamy came from God or it did not, it is us vs them.  God will bless you or He will curse you, Heaven or Hell, The list is endless. Even the BoM musical has to be either evil or good.  There is no room for parts of it being good in the religious paradigm.  I see it on this board on a regular basis.  You are either a TBM or you are anti Mormon.  In religion there is very little room for middle ground.

This black/white equation is what is causing the dwindling of religion.  It is how religion has been set up for centuries.  What made it work in the past is fear.  If you were not doing what the church told you to, then you would be labeled an apostate, kicked out of the church, burned at the stake, stoned  or something worse.  If you questioned church beliefs like Galleo for example, then you were thrown in prison EVEN when it fact what he said was true.  The truth was not as important as towing the religious line.  When people stop fearing God or the church, then they look more at how things are, not how things are portrayed.

As I think about members of this board who have definite doubts about the church but still have remained active and involved it is consistently because they no longer have this black/white view of the church or religion.  They can see the good in the church and many of it's teachings.  They embrace that good and learn to roll their eyes when things that they know are not true are being discussed in church.  Those that adhere to the blacy/white view of religion treat those posters with suspicion and sometimes outright label them as anti-Mormon.  

Those that leave the church leave not because the church has failed them, but that the black/white paradigm that religion has set up has failed them.  They see  enough error in the church that they throw out the whole thing.  And sometimes they throw out religion entirely.

But what do I know.  I too have been labeled as an apostate and anti-Mormon by those that keep to this black/white view of religion.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This black/white equation is what is causing the dwindling of religion.  It is how religion has been set up for centuries.  What made it work in the past is fear.  If you were not doing what the church told you to, then you would be labeled an apostate, kicked out of the church, burned at the stake, stoned  or something worse.  If you questioned church beliefs like Galleo for example, then you were thrown in prison EVEN when it fact what he said was true.  The truth was not as important as towing the religious line.  When people stop fearing God or the church, then they look more at how things are, not how things are portrayed.

I think your history is a bit off on this. First most people really weren't terribly religious, although a belief in God was extremely widespread. Even in the early US there were large ebbs and flows in religiosity. Second, while there definitely were huge fights over religion, they are much more complicated than merely "not doing what the Church told you" but were wrapped up in official state religions and perceptions of loyalty to the government leaders. That's not to deny the problem of doctrinal based fights as well. But typically there's a lot more going on with broader in-group/out-group anger. Humans are rather good and fighting over and policing group-boundaries. Religion is just one example of those boundaries.

You're history of Galileo is also wrong, although it's a common myth often repeated by critics of religion. His imprisonment had little to do with his science and far more to do with his theology. That's not to say it doesn't fit your point about theological conflicts, but it really wasn't about "what he said was true."

 

Quote

I think that sacred and secular have two completely paradigms.  Secular ideas thrive on imperfection.  It is a search for truth.  As soon as something is proven wrong, it is easily discarded in favor of something that is closer to the truth.  Think of all of the dramatic shifts in the beliefs of science.  And think of all of the exploration of nuance ideas that have been explored with no fear of what that might lead to.  If tomorrow, a scientist could throw out the Law of Relativity, then his new theory would b touted as being a breakthrough in thought and understanding.  

Religion has a different paradigm.  It is much more black and white.  Good vs evil, God vs Satan, the Book of Mormon is true or it is false, Joseph Smith was a prophet or a fraud, polygamy came from God or it did not, it is us vs them.  God will bless you or He will curse you, Heaven or Hell, The list is endless. Even the BoM musical has to be either evil or good.  There is no room for parts of it being good in the religious paradigm.  I see it on this board on a regular basis.  You are either a TBM or you are anti Mormon.  In religion there is very little room for middle ground.

I don't agree with that characterization of religion. Of course religion has strongly held theories and gets upset when people violate it. But so too does secularism. In general ethics and values can't be proven yet secularism has an abundant number of ethical views it polices strongly and treats in a black or white fashion. While science of course holds everything in a tentative fashion, if you go around saying there's no gravity I think you'll be treated far worse than if you went around saying there's no Adam or Eve. Try telling your professor in physics class about your beliefs about gravity and see how you do. 

Now one might appeal to evidence, but then typically with theological views there's an evidentiary appeal too. Admittedly the evidence usually isn't empirical, but structurally the same thing is going on socially.

Quote

As I think about members of this board who have definite doubts about the church but still have remained active and involved it is consistently because they no longer have this black/white view of the church or religion.  They can see the good in the church and many of it's teachings.  They embrace that good and learn to roll their eyes when things that they know are not true are being discussed in church.  Those that adhere to the blacy/white view of religion treat those posters with suspicion and sometimes outright label them as anti-Mormon.

I agree it's much healthier to realize most in religion isn't black or white. People who embrace a black and white approach to religion usually struggle. My experience is that many (not all) people who leave religion leave because they think religion can only be black or white. That do me is a silly reason to leave since simply adopting a less fundamentalist view of religion is much healthier. It's the classic example of a false dichotomy.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 8/20/2017 at 5:41 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I would say that's a virtual certainty, Hope For Things.  I would say that's a virtual certainty.  Personally, I'm exceedingly reluctant to pass judgment in cases where I do not have all of the facts, but ... to each, his own.  

You're passing judgment on me in the thread, we all judge all the time, its just part of human nature.  I think passing reasonable judgment with limited information is just how we have to operate in life.  We should also be very very willing to change our judgments and apologize when those judgments are incorrect.  Its the later part that I don't see often enough, too many people want to double down on poor judgment because they are worried an admission of fault is a sign of weakness.  

Edited August 22, 2017 by hope_for_things

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think your history is a bit off on this. First most people really weren't terribly religious, although a belief in God was extremely widespread. Even in the early US there were large ebbs and flows in religiosity. Second, while there definitely were huge fights over religion, they are much more complicated than merely "not doing what the Church told you" but were wrapped up in official state religions and perceptions of loyalty to the government leaders. That's not to deny the problem of doctrinal based fights as well. But typically there's a lot more going on with broader in-group/out-group anger. Humans are rather good and fighting over and policing group-boundaries. Religion is just one example of those boundaries.

Well it actually depends on what period of history we are talking about.  I agree that the influence of religion has ebbed and flowed.  But there certainly have been times where the rule of the church determined whether you lived or died.  The Spanish inquisition period would be one example. You were either loyal to the teachings of the Catholic church or you would suffer the consequences.  During the time of Henry the VIII would be another example.  You were forced to accept the Church of England's dogma or there would be serious consequences, even death.  I would call that pretty black and white.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

You're history of Galileo is also wrong, although it's a common myth often repeated by critics of religion. His imprisonment had little to do with his science and far more to do with his theology. That's not to say it doesn't fit your point about theological conflicts, but it really wasn't about "what he said was true."

I tend to think of you as being fairly right about most issues in history, but I really don't know where you are getting this view of Galileo.  Perhaps you could reference where you are getting this notion from.  Here is my reference.

This is the sentence he received from the Catholic Church.

 

Quote

 

In 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII,begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the Sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

This time, Galileo’s technical argument didn’t win the day. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”

Along with the order came the following penalty: “We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

 

 

It sounds to me like he was imprisioned for going against the religious beliefs at the time.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't agree with that characterization of religion. Of course religion has strongly held theories and gets upset when people violate it. But so too does secularism. In general ethics and values can't be proven yet secularism has an abundant number of ethical views it polices strongly and treats in a black or white fashion. While science of course holds everything in a tentative fashion, if you go around saying there's no gravity I think you'll be treated far worse than if you went around saying there's no Adam or Eve. Try telling your professor in physics class about your beliefs about gravity and see how you do. 

Well I think your example of gravity is silly.  I am not saying that any view about anything would become acceptable.  I am saying that what is perceived  of as truth can change at any time someone can demonstrate that current knowledge is wrong and their belief is correct.  So if someone could go to their professor in physics and demonstrate that gravity really doesn't exist or even could be altered, I am pretty sure he would go to the head of the class and probably get a Nobel prize for being able to demonstrate that new finding.  This is not how religion works.

 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Now one might appeal to evidence, but then typically with theological views there's an evidentiary appeal too. Admittedly the evidence usually isn't empirical, but structurally the same thing is going on socially.

I disagree.  Religion does not rely on evidence that can be independently tested as a test for their paradigm.  

 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree it's much healthier to realize most in religion isn't black or white. People who embrace a black and white approach to religion usually struggle. My experience is that many (not all) people who leave religion leave because they think religion can only be black or white. That do me is a silly reason to leave since simply adopting a less fundamentalist view of religion is much healthier. It's the classic example of a false dichotomy.

 

I do agree with you that the reason people may leave religion is because they think religion can only be black and white.  I also still think that religion itself has set that paradigm up.  I do believe that how some posters on this very board are viewed by some of  the TBM's and how even I am viewed by some TBMs is evidence of that black/white view of their religious beliefs  Many view me as being hostile and anti-Mormon because of SOME of my beliefs about the church.  They completely ignore all of the common ground I hold with them on church teachings and practices.  I have even had a poster repeatedly call me a bad father because i support my children's participation in the church when I don't believe that everything the church does is right or is as church leaders claim it to be.

You haven't convinced me this time.  I still think that what I wrote is a big difference between the paradigm of religion and secularism.  But hey, I am open to correction and further explanation.  

[california boy]

Evidence of exactly what I am talking about from another thread

Quote

 

California Boy

Why is the Spirit whispering to so many members that something is wrong

 

Answer from JAI

Quote

 

JAI

They are listening to the wrong spirit. The church leaders are not perfect but they are united in this doctrine. I trust the spirit they are listening to, more than the spirit a few other church members are listening to. 

 

Other members views are called out for following the whisperings of Satan and not the church leaders which, of course, are following the whisperings of God.  No discussion about the points or why those members hold a different belief.  Their reasoning is completely dismissed without consideration.

[california boy]

From another thread,

 

Quote

 

48 minutes ago,  ALarson said: 

Well, it certainly was hinted at (which is what I stated).  But we can't know what Clayton was thinking, can we?  He may have just had sleeping in mind.  The conclusion I posted above is the only one I can make with what was written by him in his diary.

 

 

Quote

 

Scott Lloyd

How do you know it was "hinted at" if you can't know what he was thinking? What was there to be "hinted at"? To ask it another way, who is doing the hinting and what is it that he's hinting at?

You're not making sense.

Innuendo, just as Bernard said. And denying it when it's obvious what you're doing makes your action all the more sleazy.

 

The bolding is mine.  See how there is no discussion of what was actually said or what William Clayton actually wrote?  ALarson's information from the writings of William Clayton are dismissed out of hand, not discussed and he is labeled as being sleazy.

With Scott, it is either black or white.  This could not possibly have happened and Scott is unwilling to read the journal himself to investigate for himself the validity  of what ALareoon said before pronouncing judgement on the messenger.. 

Yet this is actually what ALarson said.  He never reported the event as fact.

Quote

 

  48 minutes ago,  ALarson said: 

Well, it certainly was hinted at (which is what I stated).  But we can't know what Clayton was thinking, can we?  He may have just had sleeping in mind.  The conclusion I posted above is the only one I can make with what was written by him in his diary.

 

 

And these are just two examples that were made in the past hour on this board.  

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by california boy

[thesometimesaint]

This is where I think the LDS have the advantage. As a general rule we are perfectly fine with both the Sacred and the Secular.

Sacred

SEE  We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own] conscience, and allow all men the same privilege[,] let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Secular

SEE We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well it actually depends on what period of history we are talking about.  I agree that the influence of religion has ebbed and flowed.  But there certainly have been times where the rule of the church determined whether you lived or died.  The Spanish inquisition period would be one example. You were either loyal to the teachings of the Catholic church or you would suffer the consequences.  During the time of Henry the VIII would be another example.  You were forced to accept the Church of England's dogma or there would be serious consequences, even death.  I would call that pretty black and white.  

There were periods when it was more black and white but the reasons for it were larger political ones. So I fully agree that does sometimes happen (and I thought I indicated that but rereading it I probably wasn't explicit enough) So for instance during the period after Henry the VIII when England was flipflopping between Catholoicism and Anglicanism there were tons of black and white persecutions. But those really had less to do with religion ultimately than vying for power where the religion determined alliances and so forth. Likewise the Inquisition and Counter Reformation are more complicated for similar albeit different reasons. As I said the average person wasn't that religious in a practical way and issues of religion were much more about political power by elites. Even when you have the English civil war with puritans under Cromwell things are arguably still political, although I'd concede that was at least as much religious as anything.

Quote

I tend to think of you as being fairly right about most issues in history, but I really don't know where you are getting this view of Galileo.  Perhaps you could reference where you are getting this notion from.  Here is my reference.

 This is pretty well discussed in philosophy of science and history of science. One of my favorite historians on this era of early modernism is Thony Christie. Here's two posts well worth reading. Part 1 Part 2. Again I don't want to say religion didn't matter. It did. But almost certainly Catholicism would have embraced heliocentrism had it not been for Galileo himself. i.e. in certain ways it's the exact opposite situation as the myth portrays. (His blog, btw, has tons of fascinating discussions of the tensions between science and religion in early modernism. Things are simply much more complicated than the simplistic stories you usually hear.) The typical portrayal is honest unbiased truth seekers who are portrayed as secular versus ignorant religionists. In reality both sides were typically religious and the conflicts are far more complicated often tied to politics or ego. Again, there's no denying it's not the modern free speech situation we have today. But that's because it's taking place in the period of early modernism before such political spaces had been invented.

Quote

I disagree.  Religion does not rely on evidence that can be independently tested as a test for their paradigm.  

I was pretty careful how I phrased it. I didn't say empirical evidence (which ultimately is what counts in science). But if someone were to say Christ wasn't God then they'd appeal to passages in the Bible that Christ was God. Whether you accept the Bible or not that is evidence. Perhaps not evidence persuasive to you - but it means that the debates were not just subjective although they did hinge upon a set of common assumptions. 

Quote

Well I think your example of gravity is silly.  I am not saying that any view about anything would become acceptable.  I am saying that what is perceived  of as truth can change at any time someone can demonstrate that current knowledge is wrong and their belief is correct.  So if someone could go to their professor in physics and demonstrate that gravity really doesn't exist or even could be altered, I am pretty sure he would go to the head of the class and probably get a Nobel prize for being able to demonstrate that new finding.  This is not how religion works.

I think it's very apt. Again the issue is what counts as evidence people are willing to even examine. There are no shortage of crackpots claiming they can demonstrate physics is wrong. Guess how many physicists pay attention to them? Guess what would happen to them in a physics class?  You're describing an ideal that simply doesn't actually happen in the social community of scientists. The usual defense is that extreme positions require extreme evidence. And while that might be true the reality is that typically they don't even let the evidence get heard. I could list quite a few examples of this in recent history. In most cases I'm with the ignore them camp. But let's at least be honest about the sociology of what's going on.

Quote

I do agree with you that the reason people may leave religion is because they think religion can only be black and white.  I also still think that religion itself has set that paradigm up.  I do believe that how some posters on this very board are viewed by some of  the TBM's and how even I am viewed by some TBMs is evidence of that black/white view of their religious beliefs  Many view me as being hostile and anti-Mormon because of SOME of my beliefs about the church.  They completely ignore all of the common ground I hold with them on church teachings and practices.  I have even had a poster repeatedly call me a bad father because i support my children's participation in the church when I don't believe that everything the church does is right or is as church leaders claim it to be.

I agree that religions (including our own) have incentivized this black and white mentality. However that doesn't make it any less of a problem nor any less of a false dichotomy.

Quote

You haven't convinced me this time.  I still think that what I wrote is a big difference between the paradigm of religion and secularism.  But hey, I am open to correction and further explanation.  

Oh, I think there are huge differences between religion and secularism. I just don't think they are the differences you've presented. But the mere fact we can distinguish them easily implies big differences.

Edited August 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

One more example.  From Bernard Gil

Quote

 

Bernard Gil

We Mormons base our definition of marriage on Jacob 2; therefore, we must oppose this, too. But using CB's argument, doing so would be further evidence that the Church is oppressive, denies the Plan of Happiness to those who want multi-partner relationships, and fulfilling Paul's prophecy. The former LDS practice of plural marriage will be used to silence the Church's opposition.

 

I never said anything about threesomes.  What my actual point was that marriage is a key component to the Plan of Happiness.  Without marriage as part of the Plan of Happiness the whole plan falls apart.  Yet gay couples are denied participation in that Plan of Happiness because they are denied the ability to marry their partner.  

Bernard doesn't reference the point I made.  He changes it to a point he was trying to make and then attributing that point to me.  Why? I don't accept the black and white view the church holds towards gay couples.  That being they are either apostates and out of the church or they are prohibited from marrying.  If what I stated doesn't fit into the black and white view of gay couples, then make something up and attribute it to me.   This goes on in virtually every thread on a regular basis.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You're passing judgment on me in the thread, we all judge all the time, its just part of human nature.  I think passing reasonable judgment with limited information is just how we have to operate in life.  We should also be very very willing to change our judgments and apologize when those judgments are incorrect.  Its the later part that I don't see often enough, too many people want to double down on poor judgment because they are worried an admission of fault is a sign of weakness.  

Yep. Absolutely. I do it's ironic, though, that you direct these comments to a third party when what you should really be doing is giving yourself this little speech in the mirror, but, again, to each, his own. You yourself have already admitted that perhaps there are back stories and subtexts involved with his interactions with his detractors which have colored those interactions and of which you are unaware, and I responded that not only is that a possibility, it's a virtual certainty. Yet you continue to want to attempt to claim the rhetorical high ground by speculating or intimating that since Dan responds to people who have hidden agendas, ulterior motives, axes to grind, and so on, with somewhat of an acerbic wit, that must also be how he responds to people who simply have questions or doubts, who are enduring genuine crises of faith, and so on.

In fact, “Physics Guy's” post above is a pretty good illustration of this phenomenon. I think it's very likely that “Physics Guy” now will bray in his usual “Cyber haunts” about how the cold, cruel, calloused, heartless Dan Peterson said that someone committed suicide for a 10% raise, Sundays off, and so on. But while “Physics Guy's” conclusion that only the most heartless and cruel of people would joke about suicide certainly isn't without merit, Dan's joke wasn't about anyone's suicide, it was about why even faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, let alone those who are disaffected from the faith, who are skeptical, and so on, might find the prospect of laying down the responsibilities inherent in Church membership to be an attractive option.

While, again, I have never met Dan face-to-face, nor have I met most all of his detractors face-to-face, what I have done is interacted with Dan on line, as well as observing many of his on-line interactions with his detractors, for the better part of about 20 years now. In that time, I have read some of the most vile, insulting, hateful characterizations of him from his detractors I have ever seen written about any human being. I wouldn't necessarily blame anyone for responding in kind, for returning fire with four barrels (a double-barreled shotgun in each hand) a-blazin'! If anything, Dan's response, by contrast, has been quite measured and restrained when compared with the amount and the acidity of vitriol directed his way. From what I've seen, he deflects most of it with humor.

“We all must judge with limited information” is far from an adequate defense when at least two posters on this thread have tried to convince you that your judgments of Dan are based on something far less than the full, clear picture of the history of his interactions with his detractors. You can continue to imply that your judgment is superior to that of those who possess more of the facts if you wish, but I don't think a reasonable observer would conclude that you have much of a case.

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There were periods when it was more black and white but the reasons for it were larger political ones. So I fully agree that does sometimes happen (and I thought I indicated that but rereading it I probably wasn't explicit enough) So for instance during the period after Henry the VIII when England was flipflopping between Catholoicism and Anglicanism there were tons of black and white persecutions. But those really had less to do with religion ultimately than vying for power where the religion determined alliances and so forth. Likewise the Inquisition and Counter Reformation are more complicated for similar albeit different reasons. As I said the average person wasn't that religious in a practical way and issues of religion were much more about political power by elites. Even when you have the English civil war with puritans under Cromwell things are arguably still political, although I'd concede that was at least as much religious as anything.

And that was my point.  Sometimes that black and white line is more sharply defined, but i could list hundreds of examples where religion  defined things in a clear black and white viewpoint.  It still goes on today as illustrated by the posts I quoted that occurred just in the last hour.

 

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 This is pretty well discussed in philosophy of science and history of science. One of my favorite historians on this era of early modernism is Thony Christie. Here's two posts well worth reading. Part 1 Part 2. Again I don't want to say religion didn't matter. It did. But almost certainly Catholicism would have embraced heliocentrism had it not been for Galileo himself. i.e. in certain ways it's the exact opposite situation as the myth portrays. (His blog, btw, has tons of fascinating discussions of the tensions between science and religion in early modernism. Things are simply much more complicated than the simplistic stories you usually hear.) The typical portrayal is honest unbiased truth seekers who are portrayed as secular versus ignorant religionists. In reality both sides were typically religious and the conflicts are far more complicated often tied to politics or ego. Again, there's no denying it's not the modern free speech situation we have today. But that's because it's taking place in the period of early modernism before such political spaces had been invented.

Clark, this is what you said.  "You're history of Galileo is also wrong, although it's a common myth often repeated by critics of religion. His imprisonment had little to do with his science and far more to do with his theology. "

The evidence shows that Galileo was indeed imprisoned for going against the Catholic Church teachings.  Whether the church would have eventually embraced that idea is an entirely different issue.  Yeah, eventually religion is forced by the shear weight of evidence that their teachings have been wrong.  One of the issues that is very similar to Galileo's time is whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.  To a large extent religion is backing away from that belief because there is so much empirical evidence against that teaching.

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I was pretty careful how I phrased it. I didn't say empirical evidence (which ultimately is what counts in science). But if someone were to say Christ wasn't God then they'd appeal to passages in the Bible that Christ was God. Whether you accept the Bible or not that is evidence. Perhaps not evidence persuasive to you - but it means that the debates were not just subjective although they did hinge upon a set of common assumptions. 

Maybe we are talking past each other on this point.  Because that is exactly the point I am making   Secularism requires empirical evidence to support it's truths.  When empirical evidence is challenged and new evidence is shown to be closer to the truth, then the old evidence is easily discarded for the more accurate truth. Religion does not do this.  It resists challenges to it's beliefs even when empirical evidence is shown that those beliefs are incorrect.

 

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's very apt. Again the issue is what counts as evidence people are willing to even examine. There are no shortage of crackpots claiming they can demonstrate physics is wrong. Guess how many physicists pay attention to them? Guess what would happen to them in a physics class?  You're describing an ideal that simply doesn't actually happen in the social community of scientists. The usual defense is that extreme positions require extreme evidence. And while that might be true the reality is that typically they don't even let the evidence get heard. I could list quite a few examples of this in recent history. In most cases I'm with the ignore them camp. But let's at least be honest about the sociology of what's going on.

I agree that religions (including our own) have incentivized this black and white mentality. However that doesn't make it any less of a problem nor any less of a false dichotomy.

Oh, I think there are huge differences between religion and secularism. I just don't think they are the differences you've presented. But the mere fact we can distinguish them easily implies big differences.

I don't think any of us should be using crack pots to support what we are discussing.  You are shifting the beliefs that I presented and that you are challenging to a different area than what I was addressing.

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Clark, this is what you said.  "You're history of Galileo is also wrong, although it's a common myth often repeated by critics of religion. His imprisonment had little to do with his science and far more to do with his theology. "The evidence shows that Galileo was indeed imprisoned for going against the Catholic Church teachings.  Whether the church would have eventually embraced that idea is an entirely different issue.  Yeah, eventually religion is forced by the shear weight of evidence that their teachings have been wrong.  One of the issues that is very similar to Galileo's time is whether or not Adam and Eve were real people.  To a large extent religion is backing away from that belief because there is so much empirical evidence against that teaching.

But again if you look at the history rather than just what the charges was, the situation is so much more complicated that you can't really say he was imprisoned for his heliocentrism. Rather he was an idiot politically and acted out of arrogance. Had he acted differently there would have been no problem. Now we could say, well he should be allowed to be an idiot. But this was a political world where such conceptions of free speech simply didn't exist. However ultimately that's not a religious issue. Fundamentally Galileo's problem wasn't his science but that he started acting as a theologian without understanding the politics.

Quoting from Thorny:

Quote

Galileo now set in motion a chain of events that probably constitute the biggest error in his life. He wrote a long letter to Castelli supplying him with arguments to use against those quoting Bible passages against heliocentricity. He set about playing the theologian, reinterpreting those passages to make them conform to Copernican thought. He suggested for example that when the Lord commanded the sun to stand still he stopped its rotation about its axis, a rotation that Galileo had recently proved with his study of sunspots. The whole letter was, to put it mildly, a blunder.

Some of Galileo’s enemies, disgruntled Aristotelians who had been subjected publically to the scorn of Galileo’s sharp tongue, got hold of a copy of the letter and presented it to the Church authorities. Surprisingly the Church found most of the letter unobjectionable except for a handful of passages. Galileo tried to bluff his way out of the matter by claiming that those passages were not in the original but had been added to the copy by his enemies, whether you believe him or not is left entirely up to you. The Church demanded the original. In the meantime Galileo instead of backing down was working on an expanded version of the letter, which would go down in history as the Letter to Christina, to whom it was directly addressed. Galileo really did not know when to leave things alone. Why one might ask was it so terrible for Galileo to suggest new interpretations of the Bible?

Had Galileo stuck to science rather than delving into theology there would have been no problem.

Now you can say that there ought to have been freedom of theology too. Which I'd agree with. But let's at least be clear we're no longer talking science.

Quote

Maybe we are talking past each other on this point.  Because that is exactly the point I am making   Secularism requires empirical evidence to support it's truths.  When empirical evidence is challenged and new evidence is shown to be closer to the truth, then the old evidence is easily discarded for the more accurate truth. Religion does not do this.  It resists challenges to it's beliefs even when empirical evidence is shown that those beliefs are incorrect.

I'm distinguishing between secularism and science. Fundamentally I reject your claim that secularism requires empirical evidence. There are tons of secular ethical claims taken as truth that can't in any way shape or form be established empirically. So you either have to explain how these ethic norms are not really secular or explain how they can be established empirically.

Quote

I don't think any of us should be using crack pots to support what we are discussing.  You are shifting the beliefs that I presented and that you are challenging to a different area than what I was addressing.

But crackpots matter precisely because they point out where questions aren't entertained. i.e. where things are more black and white. That's precisely what I'm getting at. Further I think you downplay to what degree formerly legitimate scientists quickly get relegated to the crackpot heap. Things like cold fusion, ball lightning (although that's now science), or the inertialess drive are all examples of this. This isn't a fringe point but very central to the issue we're discussing.

Edited August 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yep. Absolutely. I do it's ironic, though, that you direct these comments to a third party when what you should really be doing is giving yourself this little speech in the mirror, but, again, to each, his own. You yourself have already admitted that perhaps there are back stories and subtexts involved with his interactions with his detractors which have colored those interactions and of which you are unaware, and I responded that not only is that a possibility, it's a virtual certainty. Yet you continue to want to attempt to claim the rhetorical high ground by speculating or intimating that since Dan responds to people who have hidden agendas, ulterior motives, axes to grind, and so on, with somewhat of an acerbic wit, that must also be how he responds to people who simply have questions or doubts, who are enduring genuine crises of faith, and so on.

In fact, “Physics Guy's” post above is a pretty good illustration of this phenomenon. I think it's very likely that “Physics Guy” now will bray in his usual “Cyber haunts” about how the cold, cruel, calloused, heartless Dan Peterson said that someone committed suicide for a 10% raise, Sundays off, and so on. But while “Physics Guy's” conclusion that only the most heartless and cruel of people would joke about suicide certainly isn't without merit, Dan's joke wasn't about anyone's suicide, it was about why even faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, let alone those who are disaffected from the faith, who are skeptical, and so on, might find the prospect of laying down the responsibilities inherent in Church membership to be an attractive option.

While, again, I have never met Dan face-to-face, nor have I met most all of his detractors face-to-face, what I have done is interacted with Dan on line, as well as observing many of his on-line interactions with his detractors, for the better part of about 20 years now. In that time, I have read some of the most vile, insulting, hateful characterizations of him from his detractors I have ever seen written about any human being. I wouldn't necessarily blame anyone for responding in kind, for returning fire with four barrels (a double-barreled shotgun in each hand) a-blazin'! If anything, Dan's response, by contrast, has been quite measured and restrained when compared with the amount and the acidity of vitriol directed his way. From what I've seen, he deflects most of it with humor.

“We all must judge with limited information” is far from an adequate defense when at least two posters on this thread have tried to convince you that your judgments of Dan are based on something far less than the full, clear picture of the history of his interactions with his detractors. You can continue to imply that your judgment is superior to that of those who possess more of the facts if you wish, but I don't think a reasonable observer would conclude that you have much of a case.

I find it funny that you're asking me to turn the mirror around on myself, when I suggested the same thing to you just moments earlier.   Ahh, such is human nature I guess.  I think with these observations it would be good for all of us to consider in general as well. 

As for joking, there is a time and place where humor is appropriate, and sometimes bad timed humor can be detrimental, so I think that is a blanket defense for any comments someone makes.  

Also, it seems as if you're wanting to defend all behavior from a Dan, regardless what that behavior has been, or is.  Like you're saying that my observations aren't valid no matter what, just because you haven't seen the same things I've seen or you haven't experienced what I've experienced.  I'm not out to prove bad behavior in a public forum, I don't find that kind of discussion productive, so I'm not going go screen shot what I've read and try to show examples of the poor behavior.  My statements are my observations, I don't expect everyone to agree with me either, they are still valid and I consider myself a reasonable person.  I already agreed that I might not have the full picture, just like you don't have the full picture of my observations.   

[thesometimesaint]

Galileo's telescope did more to change religion than any other man made thing. His mocking of a certain Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine got him into trouble. Not a good move at the time.

[hope_for_things]

On 8/21/2017 at 0:04 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I know Dan personally and have for many years.  He has interacted with people on this board from time to time, and has commented as editor of Interpreter and previously of FARMS Review.  He also has a regular column in the Deseret News.  In none of those places have I witnessed him being rude, disrespectful, or insulting, although he does have a great sense of humor about nonsense.  Perhaps you don't like his sense of humor.  Is that what it really boils down to for you?

Perhaps I am simply ignorant of those horrible occasions when he has been truly rude, disrespectful, and insulting.  Could you please quote and cite two or three examples of his perversity?  That might help clarify what we are talking about here.  Because, thus far, I have no idea what you are really saying, and your claims about him appear to be completely false.

Robert,

At first glance I thought your request was reasonable and I might get some examples from comments on his blog, or from old facebook threads I've read.  But on second thought, I just don't feel comfortable doing that in a forum like this.  Besides, my goal was not to "prove" how unfair Dan has been in the past.  I just don't like doing that kind of thing, and don't see it as productive.  I'm stating an opinion based on my personal observations, and I'd like to leave it as my opinion, rather than get into a debate about that opinion, I'll just let it stand as my opinion.  

I can also validate your perspective as well.  Everyone is entitled to a perspective on what they see.

[hagoth7]

On 8/18/2017 at 4:11 PM, Glenn101 said:

And what can a person do if there is struggling and suffering involved but it is not seen?

 

Pray for insight...

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Physics Guy,

He's surely one of the most reprehensible, irredeemable, reprobate excuses for a [Ahem!] "human" being ever to walk the face of the earth.  I have it on good authority that even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of his home, and, although he once had a pet maggot, even the maggot found Professor Peterson's company so distasteful that it preferred death.

Now that we've formed opinions of Peterson, we needn't comment further.  Surely, he's not worthy of our continued attention.

Maybe not, but he got mine.... I want some of whatever he has if it can stop weeds from growing in a 5 mile radius around my house... heck, I'll settle for just a little if it only manages to stop weeds from growing on my little 1/3 acre...  I say bring it please!!

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Robert,

At first glance I thought your request was reasonable and I might get some examples from comments on his blog, or from old facebook threads I've read.  But on second thought, I just don't feel comfortable doing that in a forum like this.  Besides, my goal was not to "prove" how unfair Dan has been in the past.  I just don't like doing that kind of thing, and don't see it as productive.  I'm stating an opinion based on my personal observations, and I'd like to leave it as my opinion, rather than get into a debate about that opinion, I'll just let it stand as my opinion.  

I can also validate your perspective as well.  Everyone is entitled to a perspective on what they see.

Reminds me of someone bearing his testimony and leaving it at that, which I suppose would be acceptable in Sunday School for Fast & Testimony Meeting.  But as Brother Brigham used to say, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."   This is, after all, a board in which we have a rule which is to put up, or . . . .  In other words, we deal with substantive questions by providing actual evidence -- under the heading of CFR.  Why?  Because its a rule.  Besides, we might learn something about the real Dan Peterson.  I am the sort of person who will criticize someone for getting out of line, just as some people on this board have taken me to task for saying inappropriate things.  We all need to keep each other honest, and Dan is not an exception.  However, without the evidence, where does that leave us?  So, CFR, good buddy.  

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reminds me of someone bearing his testimony and leaving it at that, which I suppose would be acceptable in Sunday School for Fast & Testimony Meeting.  But as Brother Brigham used to say, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."   This is, after all, a board in which we have a rule which is to put up, or . . . .  In other words, we deal with substantive questions by providing actual evidence -- under the heading of CFR.  Why?  Because its a rule.  Besides, we might learn something about the real Dan Peterson.  I am the sort of person who will criticize someone for getting out of line, just as some people on this board have taken me to task for saying inappropriate things.  We all need to keep each other honest, and Dan is not an exception.  However, without the evidence, where does that leave us?  So, CFR, good buddy.  

But, Robert,

Shhhhhhhhh!!!  Hope For Things doesn't feel comfortable providing evidence.   It's much easier and more fun to trade in vague, unfounded allegations.  Besides, it's only his opinion.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Maybe not, but he got mine.... I want some of whatever he has if it can stop weeds from growing in a 5 mile radius around my house... heck, I'll settle for just a little if it only manages to stop weeds from growing on my little 1/3 acre...  I say bring it please!!

Alas, if only you were only as antisocial, as unpleasant, as reprehensible, and as utterly irredeemable of an excuse for a human being as Dan is.  (Hope For Things says it's so, albeit sans evidence (which he "doesn't feel comfortable" providing)).   Perhaps Dan gives lessons, though?  It wouldn't hurt to ask!  "Learn from the Master, you must!"

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I find it funny that you're asking me to turn the mirror around on myself, when I suggested the same thing to you just moments earlier.  ...

You misunderstand.  I'm certainly not against the self-evaluation you endorse.  I, too, think it's useful for everyone in a wide variety of circumstances.  The reason I think it would be particularly useful for you in this circumstance is because other people on this thread have provided evidence based on years of watching Dan interact with his detractors (and others), and being more aware of the potential subtexts and the back-stories that accompany those interactions.  The only thing we have from you so far is a series ipse dixits.

Not very useful.  

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Alas, if only you were only as antisocial, as unpleasant, as reprehensible, and as utterly irredeemable of an excuse for a human being as Dan is.  (Hope For Things says it's so, albeit sans evidence (which he "doesn't feel comfortable" providing)).   Perhaps Dan gives lessons, though?  It wouldn't hurt to ask!  "Learn from the Master, you must!"

I think maybe it is Dan''s degree of success against critics which has earned him this fearsome reputation. I don't personally know him, but I have never witnessed what I think these detractors might be complaining about. I have never even witnessed even a speck of aggressiveness. I would attribute that more to me than him. I can sometimes be a bit aggressive or in-your-face. Now, I have not known Dan for 10 or more years though, so maybe that is where I am missing this wonderful weed-killing property I so crave....

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/18/2017 at 5:45 PM, bluebell said:

How do we validate anger towards the church if we believe it is unfounded/unfair?  (sincere question)

I would go beyond that and question whether it is ever a good idea to validate something we earnestly believe is unfounded or unfair. It amounts to perpetuating a like, and that doesn't do anybody any favor in the long run.

Many people going through a faith crisis already believe they were lied to or misled somehow. Are we going to keep doing that to them just to spare their feelings? What happens when the jig is up?

Edited August 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think maybe it is Dan''s degree of success against critics which has earned him this fearsome reputation.

I'm certain that's what it is. Nobody likes to be contradicted, and it makes it even worse when you're contradicted to the point you can't rebut the contradiciton.
 

Quote

 

I don't personally know him, but I have never witnessed what I think these detractors might be complaining about. I have never even witnessed even a speck of aggressiveness. I would attribute that more to me than him. I can sometimes be a bit aggressive or in-your-face. Now, I have not known Dan for 10 or more years though, so maybe that is where I am missing this wonderful weed-killing property I so crave....

 

I have personally known him for over 10 years, and your assessment is spot on.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reminds me of someone bearing his testimony and leaving it at that, which I suppose would be acceptable in Sunday School for Fast & Testimony Meeting.  But as Brother Brigham used to say, "No man's opinion is worth a straw."   This is, after all, a board in which we have a rule which is to put up, or . . . .  In other words, we deal with substantive questions by providing actual evidence -- under the heading of CFR.  Why?  Because its a rule.  Besides, we might learn something about the real Dan Peterson.  I am the sort of person who will criticize someone for getting out of line, just as some people on this board have taken me to task for saying inappropriate things.  We all need to keep each other honest, and Dan is not an exception.  However, without the evidence, where does that leave us?  So, CFR, good buddy.  

I'm so tempted to provide examples of the behavior I described, but my better judgement tells me that this is not the kind of etiquette that I find is a thoughtful discussion.  The CFR conundrum for me is that even though these social media comments and blog comments are technically public meaning that they aren't part of a closed group, I personally don't feel comfortable taking those comments and posting them here, it just doesn't seem right.

 Also, my attempt to talk about Dan's attitude/approach was not to be overly critical or to characterize him in a strawman kind of way, so if my comments and the replies to my comments escalated this discussion down that road I apologize and wish to turn the clock back on those sentiments.  I have an opinion based on personal observations in the past.  I don't want to overstate that opinion or make wide claims about a person's character as a whole.  That is not my objective and I wish to leave things where they are.  If this is not acceptable to you, please let me know which specific opinions I made that I need to modify to be in alignment with the CFR rules that will also allow me to be honest with my conscience.