Standard Egyptology, A Sequel

[EdGoble]

On a previous thread I stated something, but here I will edit it down and add to it so as to not point fingers, since I get shut down every time I lrightfully call people out by name for their questionable statements:

Quote

[Certain scholars find] it convenient, every time I mention anything that has to do with Egyptian, to claim that [they] are somehow representative of "Standard Egyptology."  I would just like to make the point that Robert Ritner and his point of view is what is actually representative of "Standard Egyptology," because his is the scientific one, not any LDS Apologetic point of view. . . [when those points of view are apologetic in nature, because APOLOGETICS BY DEFINITION IS BRINGING RELIGION and RELIGIOUS CLAIMS into the realm of SCIENCE.]

Then another poster replied

Quote

 

I don't think it's that simple.  It seems that you are privileging Ritner's competency in the field, and denying Gee's, solely based on their respective attitutudes toward Mormonism (more particularly, their attitudes toward The Book of Abraham).  Is that a fair statement?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to narrow the scope of your assessment? 

 

Not at all.  LDS scholars are not scientists when they engage in apologetics.  They are only scientists when they do science.

I went on to say:

Quote

 

And I grow tired of apologists that make war with other apologists and continually put down their points of view, as if only the establishment BigScholar apologists have the only valid points of view, and are the only ones that can quote from Egyptologists.  Sorry.  You don't.  And . . . apologists are not representative of anything that is scientific, let alone "Standard Egyptology."

While LDS scholars can do science, there is nothing scientific about apologetics, and certainly nothing scientific about Book of Abraham apologetics to be able to be called "Standard Egyptology."  So let's all just stop having the Pot calling the Kettle black here, when there is nothing scientific about apologetics.

 

Then, a certain poster went on to say:

Quote

So the point of your post is . . . preemptive censorship of viewpoints with which you disagree?

And my response is, no, I'm the one that is continually censored when I get shut down for calling people out for their hypocrisy and their pot calling the kettle black, when they are not engaging in science, but they are engaging in a religious effort with religious underpinnings that are not science.

The point of the original OP in the original thread was, I get sick of high and mighty people in the LDS Academia that are not engaging in science, but engage in a Pseudo-scientific scientism in their Apologetics, as if they are the only ones that can engage in research, to the exclusion of all other apologetic research.  They are apologists when they engage in apologetics.  I for one make disclaimers that my Apologetics is not science.  They act as if their apologetics is scientific, and therefore, their apologetics is pseudoscientific, because not only are they trying to put me down by claiming that only they are scientific, but they in fact are claiming that their apologetics is science, which it is not.  I at least claim that my apologetics is not scientific.  But I can quote Egyptologists like anybody else.  And I get sick of the people that think they own the world in the Apologetics Establishment.  You people do not own the world, and you are not scientists when you engage in apologetics, just like a prophet is not a prophet when he does not speak by the Holy Ghost.

I am the one whose points of view are only represented on my own sites, not on regular apologetic sites.  I am the one that was censored when I tried to get my information up on other sites, or begging certain organizations to have my view represented.  Sorry.  There is only one person here that has been on the receiving end of censorship by the apologetic BigScholar world.  Don't try to lecture me about censorship.

Edited July 10, 2018 by EdGoble

[pogi]

I feel like singing Elton John...

"Can you feel the love tonight?"

Oh, one more song comes to mind...

"We're all in the same gang"

 

[EdGoble]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I feel like singing Elton John...

"Can you feel the love tonight?"

Oh, one more song comes to mind...

"We're all in the same gang"

So long as I am on the outside, continually put down, never accepted, and never taken seriously, and never invited "in", I am not in "your" gang.

I wear my "outsider" status as a badge, because at least I have dignity that I have followed through, in the face of continual attack by other LDS people, with what I think the Lord put me on this earth to do in the realm that I have talents in.  And in days to come, when there is a reckoning, it will be clear what really happened in these instances, and how people stood in my way, and how I was treated by them as if I was a lepper, and as if my voice had no value.

Edited July 10, 2018 by EdGoble

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

So long as I am on the outside, continually put down, never accepted, and never taken seriously, and never invited "in", I am not in "your" gang.

I wear my "outsider" status as a badge, because at least I have dignity that I have followed through, in the face of continual attack by other LDS people, with what I think the Lord put me on this earth to do in the realm that I have talents in.  And in days to come, when there is a reckoning, it will be clear what really happened in these instances, and how people stood in my way, and how I was treated by them as if I was a lepper, and as if my voice had no value.

I don't view you as an outsider Ed.  That is a "badge" that you wear all on your own.

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

........................................

 LDS scholars are not scientists when they engage in apologetics.  They are only scientists when they do science.

That statement is true by definition, if and only if, all apologetics are unscientific.  If all apologetics are unscientific or even anti-scientific, then of course one has achieved a total bifurcation of the fields of apologetics and science.  However, that strikes me as a logical category mistake which completely misundertands the definiton of apologietics -- which is merely an explanatory endeavor, and which need not in any way be anti-science.  To my way of thinking, an anti-scientific apologetic would be a failed apologetic.

40 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

..........................

And my response is, no, I'm the one that is continually censored when I get shut down for calling people out for their hypocrisy and their pot calling the kettle black, when they are not engaging in science, but they are engaging in a religious effort with religious underpinnings that are not science.

Religion is not science.  It is a separate category of thought.  However, religious claims can often be tested via science and logic.  They are not incompatible.  The concepts or hypocrisy or censorship do not by their nature come into play in such discussions -- except through mens rea.

40 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

The point of the original OP in the original thread was, I get sick of high and mighty people in the LDS Academia that are not engaging in science, but engage in a Pseudo-scientific scientism in their Apologetics, as if they are the only ones that can engage in research, to the exclusion of all other apologetic research.  They are apologists when they engage in apologetics.  I for one make disclaimers that my Apologetics is not science.  They act as if their apologetics is scientific, and therefore, their apologetics is pseudoscientific, because not only are they trying to put me down by claiming that only they are scientific, but they in fact are claiming that their apologetics is science, which it is not.  I at least claim that my apologetics is not scientific.  But I can quote Egyptologists like anybody else.  And I get sick of the people that think they own the world in the Apologetics Establishment.  You people do not own the world, and you are not scientists when you engage in apologetics, just like a prophet is not a prophet when he does not speak by the Holy Ghost.

I am the one whose points of view are only represented on my own sites, not on regular apologetic sites.  I am the one that was censored when I tried to get my information up on other sites, or begging certain organizations to have my view represented.  Sorry.  There is only one person here that has been on the receiving end of censorship by the apologetic BigScholar world.  Don't try to lecture me about censorship.

Again, bringing in the concepts  of censorship and pseudoscience is a copout.  In the free marketplace of ideas, one has no guarantee that his ideas will be accepted and believed.  Making absurd excuses and whining about it is always inappropriate.  Be a Mensch!!

15 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

So long as I am on the outside, continually put down, never accepted, and never taken seriously, and never invited "in", I am not in "your" gang.

I wear my "outsider" status as a badge, because at least I have dignity that I have followed through, in the face of continual attack by other LDS people, with what I think the Lord put me on this earth to do in the realm that I have talents in.  And in days to come, when there is a reckoning, it will be clear what really happened in these instances, and how people stood in my way, and how I was treated by them as if I was a lepper, and as if my voice had no value.

Engaging in put-downs and slamming others is ungentlemanly.  Stop it, Ed.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

So long as I am on the outside, continually put down, never accepted, and never taken seriously, and never invited "in", I am not in "your" gang.

I wear my "outsider" status as a badge, because at least I have dignity that I have followed through, in the face of continual attack by other LDS people, with what I think the Lord put me on this earth to do in the realm that I have talents in.  And in days to come, when there is a reckoning, it will be clear what really happened in these instances, and how people stood in my way, and how I was treated by them as if I was a lepper, and as if my voice had no value.

And then sweet vengeance will be yours as they burn in Hell for all eternity. MwahahaahahahahahahahA!!!!!

[EdGoble]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, bringing in the concepts  of censorship and pseudoscience is a copout.  In the free marketplace of ideas, one has no guarantee that his ideas will be accepted and believed.  Making absurd excuses and whining about it is always inappropriate.  Be a Mensch!!

Engaging in put-downs and slamming others is ungentlemanly.  Stop it, Ed.

Pot....  Black.....

[EdGoble]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And then sweet vengeance will be yours as they burn in Hell for all eternity. MwahahaahahahahahahahA!!!!!

Umm.  No.  There just will be a reckoning in time for all injustice, even if the consequence is not something that people lose their eternal life over.

[strappinglad]

I find it a bit odd that the discussion of Egyptian writing , which for the most part is itself all about the Egyptian religion , must be discussed scientifically and not religiously. To call one point of view pseudoscience  is erroneous . Points are either logical or illogical, rational or irrational. The scientific method succeeds well when it is reproducible .Unfortunately, many questions in life cannot be answered this way. The history of science is filled with errors, retractions, disputes, blind alleys, not to mention falsifications. Looking through a glass darkly doesn't just apply to spiritual thinking.  

[EdGoble]

2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I find it a bit odd that the discussion of Egyptian writing , which for the most part is itself all about the Egyptian religion , must be discussed scientifically and not religiously. To call one point of view pseudoscience  is erroneous . Points are either logical or illogical, rational or irrational. The scientific method succeeds well when it is reproducible .Unfortunately, many questions in life cannot be answered this way. The history of science is filled with errors, retractions, disputes, blind alleys, not to mention falsifications. Looking through a glass darkly doesn't just apply to spiritual thinking.  

To claim that apologetics is science is pseudoscientific.  Science exists in a bubble free from outside concerns, especially religious ones.

Apologetics is informed by science, not the other way around.

LDS Apologists can quote scientific things, but as apologists, they are religious people engaging in a non-scientific religious defense of a non-scientific point of view.

I myself engage in apologetics.  I myself deal with Egyptian in my research on a religious level.  I myself am informed by science.  But I know where science ends and religion begins, and I know what I can rightly claim and what I cannot.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

Pot....  Black.....

Pots are often black, yes.  What is your scientific point?

[EdGoble]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Pots are often black, yes.  What is your scientific point?

You have seen my points already.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

You have seen my points already.

I'm only interested in any scientific points concerning Egyptology that you may want to discuss, and I haven't seen any of those here in this thread.  And I wasn't following that other thread.  So far in this thread I've just seen you complaining about people not discussing things scientifically while you say they were not doing that.  So what scientific points do you want to discuss?  I'm not interested in seeing any more complaints from you in this thread.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

On a previous thread I stated something, but here I will edit it down and add to it so as to not point fingers, since I get shut down every time I lrightfully call people out by name for their questionable statements:

Then another poster replied

Not at all.  LDS scholars are not scientists when they engage in apologetics.  They are only scientists when they do science.

"Apologetics" and "science" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  They can be, but not necessarily so.

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

And my response is, no, I'm the one that is continually censored when I get shut down for calling people out for their hypocrisy and their pot calling the kettle black, when they are not engaging in science, but they are engaging in a religious effort with religious underpinnings that are not science.

I quite agree with you.  But again, "do[ing] science" is not necessarily mutually exclusive from "[doing] apologetics."

For example, consider these remarks by Ugo Perego:

Quote

As an adult, and being involved in the scientific and academic community, I have been often asked by many of my associates how I could hold strong to my beliefs when the scientific evidence seemed to clearly demonstrate the opposite. That seed of faith and spiritual knowledge that was planted in my heart when I was a young boy has eventually fully grown into a large tree, a safe haven that has never let me down. Science came at a later stage of my life and has contributed a new and exciting dimension where I can explore the mysteries of life using alternative methods. My spiritual and academic approach to life contributed to a greater appreciation for God’s creations, the meaning of life, and the quest for intelligence. Personal testimony comes from living a righteous life; scholarship comes from testing hypotheses through the scientific method. I feel blessed to have the opportunity to compare my findings and re-evaluate truths based on both methods. As many have said before, I expect my faith to tell me the purpose of life and science to help understand how it came to be. I have never felt that one could be a threat to the other.

And here (emphasis added):

Quote

During my graduate time, I began working for Dr. Scott R. Woodward, a professor of Molecular Biology with a thing for dinosaurs, Egyptian mummies, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Originally, I simply asked him if I could volunteer my time in his lab, but he had something else for me to do: collecting 100,000 human DNA samples worldwide with corresponding genealogical records! That was the beginning of my involvement in the field of molecular science, which continued with a doctorate degree in human genetics with Professor Antonio Torroni at the University of Pavia in Italy. Dr. Woodward and Professor Torroni provided me with an important window on the world measured by the scientific method. This was a great change for me, particularly with all the orthodox and quite literal interpretation of the scriptures I received as a BYU student. However, rather than create confusion, I gladly took the challenge of finding personal ways to reconcile theological and scientific truths. As Moses once recorded, I felt that the man in me was truly nothing without divine intervention (Moses 1: 10). I humbly realized that the phrase “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) perhaps meant the infinite gap between God’s omniscience and humankind minuscule and very limited understanding of . . . pretty much everything. There is so much yet to discover and there are so many erroneous conclusions to be drawn. And yet, in His great wisdom, our Father allows us to learn new things based on our experiments and on our errors, resulting in greater light and truth to benefit all His children. Science and religion are quite fascinating. They are like brothers who wrestle with each other all the time, but at the end they cannot be without each other. They are two complementary chests filled with treasures of infinite knowledge. Most importantly, they require a significant degree of responsibility, as God allows men and women to partake regularly of the absolute truths He has already mastered with the hope that we do some good with it.

I don’t know what I ever did to live such a blessed life, including the gift of so many years of formal education. I promised myself I would never take for granted the spiritual and secular endowment I was given and that I would do whatever I can to demonstrate my gratitude through meaningful service and hard work. When asked for an opinion based on my personal research work about topics such as the biblical account of the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. I strive with all my heart to provide an objective and yet edifying answer that can help others know that a reconciliation between scientific and spiritual evidence is indeed possible. Although I don’t consider addressing such topics part of my main research focus, I made the decision long ago to share my personal perspective with those who are honestly seeking to understand. I don’t pretend to have any exact answer, but I find fascinating that Heavenly Father would allow for so many gray areas for His children to think through as we wait for the day when all truths concerning this earth will eventually be revealed (Doctrine and Covenants 101:32-34).

Your position appears to imply that science and religion are necessarily incompatible.  That's simply not necessarily the case.  We are progressive in both spheres.

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

The point of the original OP in the original thread was, I get sick of high and mighty people in the LDS Academia that are not engaging in science, but engage in a Pseudo-scientific scientism in their Apologetics, as if they are the only ones that can engage in research, to the exclusion of all other apologetic research.  They are apologists when they engage in apologetics. 

And they are scientists when they apply scientific principles.  

And that application can happen in a context that is both "scientific" and "apologetic."

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

I for one make disclaimers that my Apologetics is not science. 

At times, so do LDS scholars.  See, e.g., these remarks by Royal Skousen regarding his "Critical Text Project":

Quote

8. Does this project have an apologetic purpose? In other words, is one of its purposes to defend the Book of Mormon against detractors?

My task, as I have always seen it, is to recover the original English-language text to the extent scholarly and academic analysis will allow. I have therefore restricted my discussion to the text per se and have completely avoided discussions of whether there are practices found among the cultures of the world (including the Americas) in support of particular readings. Nor have I engaged in any discussion of external evidences for the Book of Mormon, including questions of geography, genetics, and archaeology.

My initial endeavor as editor of the critical text project was to produce a detailed transcription of the original and printer’s manuscripts. And right from the beginning, I discovered errors that had crept into the text as Oliver Cowdery and the other scribes produced the printer’s manuscript from the original manuscript. Within a year or so I recognized that I would not be able to completely recover the original text by scholarly methods. Yet at the same time, I began to see considerable evidence for the traditional interpretation that witnesses of the translation process claimed: (1) the text was given word for word, (2) Book of Mormon names were frequently spelled out the first time they occurred in the text, and (3) during dictation there was no rewriting of the text except to correct errors in taking down the dictation. Joseph Smith was literally reading off an already composed English-language text. The evidence in the manuscripts and in the language of the text itself supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was a precisely determined text. I do not consider this conclusion apologetic, but instead as one demanded by the evidence.

The opposing viewpoint, that Joseph Smith got ideas and he translated them into his own English, cannot be supported by the manuscript and textual evidence. The only substantive argument for this alternative view has been the nonstandard nature of the text, with its implication that God would never speak ungrammatical English, so the nonstandard usage must be the result of Joseph Smith putting the ideas he received into his own language. Yet with the recent finding that the original vocabulary of the text appears to be dated from the 1500s and 1600s (not the 1800s), we now need to consider the possibility that the ungrammaticality of the original text may also date from that earlier period of time, not necessarily from Joseph’s own time and place. Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator: through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (by means of the interpreters, later called the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith).

What are your thoughts here?

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

They act as if their apologetics is scientific, and therefore, their apologetics is pseudoscientific, because not only are they trying to put me down by claiming that only they are scientific, but they in fact are claiming that their apologetics is science, which it is not. 

Could you give some examples of what you have in mind here?  Some examples of people claiming "their apologetics is scientific?"

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

I at least claim that my apologetics is not scientific.  But I can quote Egyptologists like anybody else.  And I get sick of the people that think they own the world in the Apologetics Establishment.  You people do not own the world, and you are not scientists when you engage in apologetics, just like a prophet is not a prophet when he does not speak by the Holy Ghost.

"Apologetics" is defined as "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine."

I think "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of someting" can both be "apologetic" but also apply scientific principles and methods.  You apparently disagree.  I'm okay with that.  I hope we can get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

Umm.  No.  There just will be a reckoning in time for all injustice, even if the consequence is not something that people lose their eternal life over.

Boring!!!!

[EdGoble]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm only interested in any scientific points concerning Egyptology that you may want to discuss, and I haven't seen any of those here in this thread.  And I wasn't following that other thread.  So far in this thread I've just seen you complaining about people not discussing things scientifically while you say they were not doing that.  So what scientific points do you want to discuss?  I'm not interested in seeing any more complaints from you in this thread.

I see.  Well, you see, the OP of thread was about a complaint.

If you want to see something, then you can look at my other threads, or you can look at my paper, which is not what this thread is about:

https://www.academia.edu/36428246/The_Principles_of_Book_of_Abraham_and_Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers_Symbolism

Or you can look at my other info on my Academia.edu page:

https://independent.academia.edu/EdwinGoble

Or you can look at my site:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com

Or my other blog with my decipherments:

http://alphabetorigins.blogspot.com

Or my other blog with my regular LDS stuff:

https://thoughtfulmormonism.blogspot.com

It's strange that you are treating me this way, as once you were complimenting me about "feeling the Spirit" about some of my Egyptian claims on a thread a few years back about the Book of Abraham.

It's strange that you are complaining that I am complaining when you clearly have seen the injustice I have experienced, and I am merely standing up for myself against abuse and hypocrisy.

It's strange that you are not an advocate for people who have suffered injustices, but you yourself are complaining about my complaints about injustices.  I find strange the fact that once you complimented my theory and acted like you felt good about it, but now you are coming down on me for defending myself.

Edited July 10, 2018 by EdGoble

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

I see.  Well, you see, the OP of thread was about a complaint.

If you want to see something, then you can look at my other threads, or you can look at my paper, which is not what this thread is about:

https://www.academia.edu/36428246/The_Principles_of_Book_of_Abraham_and_Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers_Symbolism

Or you can look at my site:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com

It's strange that you are treating me this way, as once you were complimenting me about "feeling the Spirit" about some of my Egyptian claims on a thread a few years back about the Book of Abraham.

It's strange that you are complaining that I am complaining when you clearly have seen the injustice I have experienced, and I am merely standing up for myself against abuse and hypocrisy.

It's strange that you are not an advocate for people who have suffered injustices, but you yourself are complaining about my complaints about injustices.  I find strange the fact that once you complimented my theory and acted like you felt good about it, but now you are coming down on me for defending myself.

I'm just not in favor of complaints, generally.  I want to see substance, and I wasn't seeing anything of substance about "Standard Egyptology" in this thread, which is the topic of this thread.

if you meant to use this thread as only a means to voice a complaint, then I suppose you've already done a good job at that, and I think most people who have read this thread have noticed that you are doing a lot of complaining.

It's just that instead of seeing you complain I would rather see you say something of substance that helps me to feel the Spirit, like if you were to say something scientific or spiritually edifying about Egyptology.

[Calm]

Quote

am the one that was censored when I tried to get my information up on other sites, or begging certain organizations to have my view represented.  Sorry.  There is only one person here that has been on the receiving end of censorship by the apologetic BigScholar world.  Don't try to lecture me about censorship.

Ed, are you just using this board as a vehicle to make this public or are you complaining about this board?  The last sentence makes me wonder as it seems you have someone in mind and few of those who work in the field post here, so I doubt they read here either.

[EdGoble]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ed, are you just using this board as a vehicle to make this public or are you complaining about this board?  The last sentence makes me wonder as it seems you have someone in mind and few of those who work in the field post here, so I doubt they read here either.

I am absolutely not complaining about this board in general, as I have generally been treated fairly by the mods on this board.  I intend to figure out how to better abide by the rules of this board so I don't get shut down in the future.

I don't intend to name names anymore.  And I don't think you want me to mention the specific other organization that has actively censored me and worked against me in a secret-combination-ish way, which happened in the 2008-2011 time frame when I was a part of that organization.  I'll just leave that alone and not name names anymore.  But it is that organization that I refer to, but I didn't want to get into that.

Edited July 10, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm just not in favor of complaints, generally.  I want to see substance, and I wasn't seeing anything of substance about "Standard Egyptology" in this thread, which is the topic of this thread.

if you meant to use this thread as only a means to voice a complaint, then I suppose you've already done a good job at that, and I think most people who have read this thread have noticed that you are doing a lot of complaining.

It's just that instead of seeing you complain I would rather see you say something of substance that helps me to feel the Spirit, like if you were to say something scientific or spiritually edifying about Egyptology.

I see.  Well, again, the point of the OP was a complaint, not really about "standard egyptology."  I used the term Standard Egyptology in this way, because a certain someone used this term in a way that was to put me down, and put my work down, as if LDS academicians that do apologetics on the Book of Abraham do Standard Egyptology and I was responding.  This will not be a very long-lived thread I believe.  I wanted to finish my point that I wanted to make before the other thread was shut down.

Edited July 10, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Boring!!!!

Sorry that you aren't entertained.  You are welcome to watch some Abbot and Costello on Youtube which is a great source of entertainment.  Or you can read this stuff.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

To claim that apologetics is science is pseudoscientific.  Science exists in a bubble free from outside concerns, especially religious ones.

Apologetics is informed by science, not the other way around.

LDS Apologists can quote scientific things, but as apologists, they are religious people engaging in a non-scientific religious defense of a non-scientific point of view.

I myself engage in apologetics.  I myself deal with Egyptian in my research on a religious level.  I myself am informed by science.  But I know where science ends and religion begins, and I know what I can rightly claim and what I cannot.

As I said above:

Quote

Religion is not science.  It is a separate category of thought.  However, religious claims can often be tested via science and logic.  They are not incompatible.  The concepts or hypocrisy or censorship do not by their nature come into play in such discussions -- except through mens rea.

You revel in logical category mistakes, Ed.  And you are unprepared to abide by standard Egyptological thinking (part of the published mainstream in Egyptology).  That does not imply that standard Egyptology has all the answers, but only that one must confine his Egyptological notions to those which are known and available -- which can be cited.  You can even think outside the box and yet maintain a coherent presentation of standard Egyptology.  It's like playing by the rules, rather than complaining that it just isn't fair.  Life is rarely fair.

[EdGoble]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Apologetics" and "science" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  They can be, but not necessarily so.

I quite agree with you.  But again, "do[ing] science" is not necessarily mutually exclusive from "[doing] apologetics."

For example, consider these remarks by Ugo Perego:

And here (emphasis added):

Your position appears to imply that science and religion are necessarily incompatible.  That's simply not necessarily the case.  We are progressive in both spheres.

And they are scientists when they apply scientific principles.  

And that application can happen in a context that is both "scientific" and "apologetic."

At times, so do LDS scholars.  See, e.g., these remarks by Royal Skousen regarding his "Critical Text Project":

What are your thoughts here?

Could you give some examples of what you have in mind here?  Some examples of people claiming "their apologetics is scientific?"

"Apologetics" is defined as "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine."

I think "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of someting" can both be "apologetic" but also apply scientific principles and methods.  You apparently disagree.  I'm okay with that.  I hope we can get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

No.  This is not true entirely.  The distinction here is very important, but very subtle.  As I said, apologetics can include scientific things as information that it draws upon, but not the other way around.  Therefore, there is only one direction where one can inform the other.

You are right that when Royal Skousen as an example engaged in textual criticism, divorced from religious concerns, as an example, he was doing something scientific.  Because he divorced himself from all outside concerns when he was focused on that.

Its the same distinction that Intelligent Design Science is nothing of the sort.  It is Evangelical, young earth creationism in sciency clothing.  It violates the cardinal rule of science.  No matter how you slice it, when you pollute science with outside concerns, what you have is no longer science, but a pollution.  Therefore, if you claim it is science, you engage in pseudoscience.  With the appropriate disclaimers you can engage in whatever kind of "sciency" research you want that is not pure science, so long as you don't call it science, and you don't claim it is something that it is not.

For example, James E. Faulconer, a professor of philosophy at BYU wrote:

Quote

In a strictly scientific attitude (an attitude that scientists need not take except when they are explicitly doing science, an attitude that is not the same as their mental attitude or personal beliefs) there is no relation to God.  The scientific region, the region in which one investigates bodies using assumptions, methods, and background of science, is necessarily godless.  Scientific objects, themselves “impoverished” or abstracted objects, incarnate the work and understanding of that region. (Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint Scriptures, “Scripture as Incarnation,” Edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 41)

Then in the end note for this statement, Professor Faulconer writes:

Quote

This is not to criticize scientists for that attitude or to suggest that God ought to be a part of science.  A great many other things also do not exist in a world inhabited scientifically, such things as morality and value or, of less consequence, good taste in food or clothing.  That absence is the consequence of the specialized incarnation required of science and is only a problem if scientists . . . forget that such a specialized incarnation is not the only one, the best one, or the final one. (Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint Scriptures, “Scripture as Incarnation,” Edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, end note 66, p. 59)

So, this “impoverished” region of life is abstracted away from the rest of life, in order to focus in on what is important for that pursuit.  It is impoverished in the sense that it whittles things down to the bare minimum using reductionism.  It is non-theistic, instead of being either theistic or atheistic.  And in this sense, it is not an enemy to religion at all, but a parallel pursuit that discovers truth in a different way with a different set of rules, and has limitations on what it can discover based on how much its rules allow for, and in what scope those rules apply. 

Donald R. Prothero, a paleontologist, wrote the following, essentially putting for the same concept:

Quote

As the late Steven Jay Gould pointed out in his book Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, science and religion can be seen as nonoverlapping . . . [W]hen religion tries to interfere with our understanding of the natural world, it overreaches  . . .  
Science is not about final truth or “facts”; it is only about continually testing and trying to falsify our hypotheses . . . 
Humans have many systems of understanding and explaining the world besides science . . . That's fine, as long as they don't call these ideas “scientific.” . . . 
Ontological or metaphysical naturalism . . . makes the bold claim that the natural is all that exists and that there is no supernatural.  That is an interesting philosophical issue, but that does not reflect what scientists are doing.  Instead, scientists practice methodological naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world, but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not.  Scientists don't exclude God from their hypotheses because they are inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of God; they simply do not consider supernatural events in their hypotheses.  Why not?  Because, . . . once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it.  We might want to say, “It is this way because God willed it so” . . . But scientists are not allowed to do this, because it is completely untestable and therefore outside the realm of science.  (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, pp. xvii, 5, 6-7, 10-11)

So, just as intelligent design young earth creationism is not a valid scientific pursuit, neither is apologetics, when they are called "science."  The information only flows one way, from science to apologetics.  You cannot mix God and science and call it science.  When you mix God and science, or any religious concern, it has become something else.  Something else valid yes, but not science.  Unfortunately, those that oppose apologists (who are atheists) only deal in the secular and in science.  This is the realm that we cannot meet them when we do apologetics.  Because to them, it is an invalid pursuit, or at least one that they do not acknowledge.  But to us, in our realm who are believers, it is a valid pursuit.  But we can't expect our adversaries to agree with us.  They just say, "its not science and its not scientific."  Unfortunately for us, they are right, and our realm of apologetics cannot invade in that realm.  But for us, it is valid, because we accept it.  They do not.  But we are wrong if we think it is somehow "scientific."  Its not, and cannot be by definition.

Edited July 10, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said above:

You revel in logical category mistakes, Ed.  And you are unprepared to abide by standard Egyptological thinking (part of the published mainstream in Egyptology).  That does not imply that standard Egyptology has all the answers, but only that one must confine his Egyptological notions to those which are known and available -- which can be cited.  You can even think outside the box and yet maintain a coherent presentation of standard Egyptology.  It's like playing by the rules, rather than complaining that it just isn't fair.  Life is rarely fair.

You have the ability to play fair if you want, Robert.  You have not.  You can have charity as a fellow Latter-day saint if you want, or you can continue to play whatever game this is that you think you need to try to invalidate everything I have to say at all costs.  You will pay for that in the end.  God as my witness.  Because to the degree that you have opposed me, if you have engaged in being part of the Great and Abominable where you have opposed me, if my errand was from God as part of my life mission, not as part of some calling as if I have some commission from the Church or something, but to the degree that the Lord had something for me to accomplish, and you stood in the way, and you refused to lend your support, you will pay for that, and there will be a reckoning.

[EdGoble]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't view you as an outsider Ed.  That is a "badge" that you wear all on your own.

Thank you for not viewing me as an outsider.

Unfortunately for me, those that are in power in the establishment do not share your opinion of me.  They are the ones that gave me this badge.  They are the ones that deliberately exclude me.