Jump to content

Faith Based vs. Scientific Reasoning


Recommended Posts

In reading some of the posts involving crimes [sexual assault], allegations, [Kavanaugh, President Russel Topic], or even controversial subjects such as Climate Change, Book of Mormon Geography, etc.. I have thought to myself there are a lot of faith based concepts juxtaposed up to scientific method and actual evidence. I'd like to discuss both and how it might affect our concept of that topic and what we take away.

Personal belief systems can take root at a very early age, sometimes as a part of our cultural or ethnic identity. As a result, they are almost impossible to remove without eroding the soil of substance that gives one both a sense of identity and purpose. However, also true, as a consequence, most will not surrender a deeply held personal belief for fear it could lead to their spiritual loss or death. There is nothing wrong with personal beliefs. I, for one, am deeply faithful and active in church. Each person finds meaning and purpose in their own way and that is how it should be. There is a difference between faith and scientific method and reason. Personal faith is not a problem unless it gets in the way of objective forensic investigation and examination.

For example; using faith based reasoning (let's say using the Bible to prove a point), the premise of an argument and the conclusion are a matter of personal belief and subsequently often considered above criticism. Those who question the premises of such beliefs, religious and otherwise dogmatic, are labeled heretics or worse. I have been called an apostate for not subscribing to a heartland theory, a racist for objecting to a safe-place policy, a climate denier for even questioning global warming (which I know there is climate change, my interests is, is it really all just man made?), a racist and a bigot for disagreeing about kneeling as a protest, a chauvinist pig for thinking men and woman are different and we should use the appropriate public bathrooms.  

In faith and personal belief, there is little room for critical thinking and no place for doubt. As a consequence, the nature of faith runs contrary to knowledge building. My faith tells me men and women are both children of God and are different from each other, science also tells me there is a biological difference too. We still have debates to how we should act and even appropriate ways to speak. For example is refusing to bake a cake with a message one does not believe in compelling speech?

Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?

The key is understanding the difference between scientific learning, empirical evidence and religious faith.  These are very different things, that sometimes cross paths, but have very different purposes and outcomes.  

Traditionally, religious thinking has been an appeal to authority, the authority of church leaders and the authority of religious texts.  From these authorities you get dogma.  Dogma typically pushes against questioning and critical thinking.  It often requires conformity with little flexibility.  These things can build a strong group identity at the expense of those who don't fit into the rigid constraints of the group.  

Scientific learning is a process of evaluating evidence in a defined process that attempts to isolate and observe and repeat the observations in a way that we can eliminate bias and better understand how something is working. Its constantly looking for data to disprove the current understandings.  While there can develop sacred cows when it comes to pet theories and precedent, the method is built specifically to break down any fallacious thinking over time.  

I would recommend this book, which talks about this intersection and has some interesting ideas.  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634311264/?coliid=IO71NR76FKY0N&colid=3DENV5AC8WEYS&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?

They are two different spheres of truth.  So long as we keep them separate, we shouldn't run into many problems.  In other words, don't use science to testify of God, and don't use religion to testify of global warming, etc. 

Presiden't Oaks spoke about this in conference:

Quote

 

Expertise in one field should not be taken as expertise on truth in other subjects.

When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search: prayer, the witness of the Holy Ghost, and study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. I am always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings. Those who once had spiritual vision can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness. As President Henry B. Eyring said, “Their problem does not lie in what they think they see; it lies in what they cannot yet see.”1

The methods of science lead us to what we call scientific truth. But “scientific truth” is not the whole of life. Those who do not learn “by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means. That puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth.

We find true and enduring joy by coming to know and acting upon the truth about who we are, the meaning of mortal life, and where we are going when we die. Those truths cannot be learned by scientific or secular methods.

 

 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Traditionally, religious thinking has been an appeal to authority, the authority of church leaders and the authority of religious texts.  From these authorities you get dogma.  Dogma typically pushes against questioning and critical thinking.  It often requires conformity with little flexibility.  These things can build a strong group identity at the expense of those who don't fit into the rigid constraints of the group.  

Thanks  for your input. I would like to discuss something you mentioned in your post. As I have seen this religious appeal to authority many times, it is quite frequent on a religious discussion board such as this one. However, there are also appeals to authority in the secular world as well. One example I can think of is of experience. The amount of experience is actually unimportant, except for the question of "what has been learned from it." Statements like; "I have been doing this for 30 years" is an appeal to authority. If one does not learn from experience, and repeats the same errors time and time again, then experience has little meaning. Someone may have been doing their job for 30 years. but it may be also be the same years of errors repeated 30 times. 

When studying climate change I noticed early in the debate that bad science (Hockey Stick analogy) was often used, often repeated and even today is often quoted as a footnote source to many modern day researchers. I can clearly see there has been climate change (e.g. there was an ice age), but it becomes much more difficult when politics entered and science is often thrown out the window in favor of partisan ideologies. The same for Book of Mormon Geography. I was told I am an apostate by Rod Meldrum because I was looking for scientific evidence and not taking the Prophets words into account (words misquoted and out of context from him). 

I used experience as one example of an appeal to authority. It is my opinion that experience is important, for example, lets take a criminal investigator/profiler Someone who has years of experience in the field, who has conducted interviews, studied autopsies, victimology, interrogated criminals, been to crime scenes, has been university level educated in criminal justice or criminology,  etc.. It is the type of experience that counts. One who has this type of experience makes a way better and IMO a much better professor of Criminal Justice than the one who has just went to school and has accepted what their past professors have told them. A Criminal Justice professor who along with the education and the field experience in that area is way more qualified and credible than just the educational lemming who only learned from the text book. Just my opinion and some things to ponder.

Thanks Hope_for_things for your input. It is valuable to me.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

They are two different spheres of truth.  So long as we keep them separate, we shouldn't run into many problems.  In other words, don't use science to testify of God, and don't use religion to testify of global warming, etc. 

Presiden't Oaks spoke about this in conference:

 

One major problem with President Oaks talk is that he didn't keep them separate.  In that very talk he makes claims about gender identity that are ignorant of the science around gender and in contradiction to it.  He should stick with earlier statements about how general authorities aren't experts on many subjects, and gender is one of them.  The doctrine being invented by recent church leaders on this subject is directly harmful to those in the transgender community and ignorant of a growing corpus of scientific understanding.  

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I buy the idea there are different spheres of truth. I recognize some push that but I just don't think it holds up. There's just truth and there's claims with different types of evidence. What gets called "faith" really is much more about the type of evidence one can offer to an other person. It's usually extremely limited so at best one can appeal to norms of the group and explicit authority and statements made by people with that authority. But there's no reason to separate science from religious talk although clearly science doesn't say much about God. But we can't say it doesn't say anything - say evolutionary psychology and cognitive science as related to religious cognition.

Clark, I do not think Pogi meant it that way, it least I did not read his post in the way you bring it up here. Yes, science and religion can be together and does not have to separated. However, there are times when it does need to be seperated. For example scripture indicate that the sun stopped for a day, or perhaps the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat. These have all been past theological arguments held by many religious leaders of the past. We should seperate faith from reason here because to solely rely on religious dogma as these which contradict science is to remain in a state of ignorance (although we do remain being faithful). The other hand is true also, if there is a scientist on the stand for his expert testimony I want to hear from this expert from his knowledge of science and not from his belief system. 

Again I think Pogi did not mean what you thought he did. Pogi if you did I apologize for speaking for you. Just how I read it.

Thanks

Edited by Anijen
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Thanks  for your input. I would like to discuss something you mentioned in your post. As I have seen this religious appeal to authority many times, it is quite frequent on a religious discussion board such as this one. However, there are also appeals to authority in the secular world as well. One example I can think of is of experience. The amount of experience is actually unimportant, except for the question of "what has been learned from it." Statements like; "I have been doing this for 30 years" is an appeal to authority. If one does not learn from experience, and repeats the same errors time and time again, then experience has little meaning. Someone may have been doing their job for 30 years. but it may be also be the same years of errors repeated 30 times. 

When studying climate change I noticed early in the debate that bad science (Hockey Stick analogy) was often used, often repeated and even today is often quoted as a footnote source to many modern day researchers. I can clearly see there has been climate change (e.g. there was an ice age), but it becomes much more difficult when politics entered and science is often thrown out the window in favor of partisan ideologies. The same for Book of Mormon Geography. I was told I am an apostate by Rod Meldrum because I was looking for scientific evidence and not taking the Prophets words into account (words misquoted and out of context from him). 

I used experience as one example of an appeal to authority. It is my opinion that experience is important, for example, lets take a criminal investigator/profiler Someone who has years of experience in the field, who has conducted interviews, studied autopsies, victimology, interrogated criminals, been to crime scenes, has been university level educated in criminal justice or criminology,  etc.. It is the type of experience that counts. One who has this type of experience makes a way better and IMO a much better professor of Criminal Justice than the one who has just went to school and has accepted what their past professors have told them. A Criminal Justice professor who along with the education and the field experience in that area is way more qualified and credible than just the educational lemming who only learned from the text book. Just my opinion and some things to ponder.

Thanks Hope_for_things for your input. It is valuable to me.

 

You make some good points.  Appeals to experience can also be flawed, although I would typically take experience over inexperience in most cases.  The thing with any of these appeals is that you need critical thinking and humility built into the structure.  If the end result of these appeals is not resulting in rational thinking and evaluation, then you have a problem. 

Our ability to evaluate evidence is a skill that has to be practiced.  We are in a world full of information and there is a lot of noise out there.  Learning to discern through the data methodically is key.  Understanding bias and analysis of the data is so important.  I used to be a global warming skeptic before I really started digging into the detail.  Today, I don't always agree with their forecasting methodology, or their recommendations for public policy, but I recognize that climate change is occurring and that its been significantly influenced by humans. 

The key for me is digging deeper.  The talking heads that make their way to mass media, are not the experts.  They often get the science wrong when they write sensational articles.  They have an agenda, and its not strictly spreading accurate information.  Check out this site, its a pretty good resource for climate change information.  And then dig further, by reading actual research papers and books from the experts themselves.  

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Clark, I do not think Pogi meant it that way, it least I did not read his post in the way you bring it up here. Yes, science and religion can be together and does not have to separated. However, there are times when it does need to be seperated. For example scripture indicate that the sun stopped for a day, or perhaps the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat. These have all been past theological arguments held by many religious leaders of the past. We should seperate faith from reason here because to solely rely on religious dogma as these which contradict science is to remain in a state of ignorance (although we do remain being faithful). The other hand is true also, if there is a scientist on the stand for his expert testimony I want to hear from this expert from his knowledge of science and not from his belief system. 

I think the issue there is less a separation between religion and science than a question of scriptural hermeneutics. That is usually the real issue is people reading scripture in what some call a literalist way but which I'd call in terms of a naive contextual reading. That is they read scripture as if it were written by an omniscient person who is a member of their community. The idea that one shouldn't read the text as if it were words spoken by a neighbor is something many people seem to neglect. 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 There's just truth and there's claims with different types of evidence. 

And how does one determine the truth value of this proposition?

Seriously?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One major problem with President Oaks talk is that he didn't keep them separate.  In that very talk he makes claims about gender identity that are ignorant of the science around gender and in contradiction to it.  

However, religion (and law) are Presidents Oaks expertise. In the world of science and religion there are some, perhaps few, but still there are some exceptions. For example two right angle next to each other the vertical lines will never cross as seen here with these two letter Ls representing the right angles.

L L

This is a mathematical certainty, but there is an exception. If I were to put those exact right angles on a sphere (picture a globe) then the two vertical lines will over distance grow closer together and eventually cross at the top of the sphere.  I uphold President Oaks as a Prophet, one who speaks for Lord. To me he is an exception and can tell us and I can accept by faith that what he says is true. I can believe that until science tells me it is not true, (I can believe that the earth is the center of the universe until 800 years later science proved it wasn't).

 

Quote

In that very talk he makes claims about gender identity that are ignorant of the science around gender and in contradiction to it. 

I do not believe this has been verified by scientist. It has been verified by political parties who have an agenda they are pushing. As far as I know Doctors and Scientist have said there are two biological sexes, male or female. There is the rare exception of the hermaphrodite. Thus, President Oaks is not contradicting nor is ignorant of science of the sexes.

 

Quote

The doctrine being invented by recent church leaders on this subject is directly harmful to those in the transgender community and ignorant of a growing corpus of scientific understanding.  

Again I disagree. If anything it is the transgender community who are ignorant of science. There feelings of who or what they identify cannot change their biological birth sex

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And how does one determine the truth value of this proposition?

Seriously?

Doesn't that statement presuppose the truth value of the proposition? That is this seems an analytic proposition based upon the meaning of truth in terms of how we use it not a synthetic one.  

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I used to be a global warming skeptic before I really started digging into the detail.  Today, I don't always agree with their forecasting methodology, or their recommendations for public policy, but I recognize that climate change is occurring and that its been significantly influenced by humans. 

I too, believe in climate change and there is scientific proof it has occured (the Ice Age), But that it is "significantly influenced by humans" I have not yet reached that point. I know the algae in the oceans (2/3rd of our planet is water) is a bigger contributor than humans.  But I can see your side too, and the argue that the world now has nearly 8 billion people when only two hundred or so years ago it had half that population, I can see how that could affect the world. So, yes, I can see your point and it is a good one. I am just not yet at accepting that humans are the biggest contributor yet.

 

Quote

The key for me is digging deeper.  The talking heads that make their way to mass media, are not the experts.  They often get the science wrong

Yes  they [talking heads] do and most of these talking heads promote global warming and humans are to blame. I even heard some of these talking heads blame terrorist acts on global warming. I certainly have not come to that conclusion.

 

Quote

 

They have an agenda,

 

yes they do. I have come to the conclusion we all have an agenda of some sort.

 

Appreciate  the site info. I will check it out.

Thanks Anijen

Link to comment

Many philosophers hold that it is all contextual within a community. 

If the statement is about science, it better have objective, repeatable evidence

If it is about religion - the statement will be in the context of those beliefs which give one's life meaning.

In a court, literal truth is measured by "reasonableness" which is quite vague, or a community of the jury who actually "create" legal truth through their own judgement, either true or false by "preponderance of evidence" OR "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The context could be two people, performing a task.  "OK grab it there" might be all that is needed or "Brick" if one is assisting a brick layer, one would know he needs you to hand him a brick.  There are no doubts in such a context about the brick being "real" that is totally irrelevant within the context.  There is no discussion about the atoms of the brick or whether or not they include Higgs-Boson particles- such concerns are irrelevant.

So in a religious context, we need to think about the context of religion and what is included in that context as appropriate.  Speaking about God, and ones BELIEFS NOT based on science might be appropriate.  No the earth did not "really" stand still- a scientist might say- but a religious person looking at the HUMAN SIGNIFICANCE of winning the battle that changed their lives could reasonably say that for them "TIME" stood still waiting to see the result.  It was irrelevant how long the battle lasted, but what was relevant to the Israelites is that the battle was won.

So philosophers today by a wide margin look at truth contextually and how the statements apply to a given community.

Remember linguistic statements are always about LANGUAGE and not "reality"- when we talk we use words to talk about other words.

That is an essential point that is as clear as A=A if you think about it.

A is a symbol for a variable.  If A does not equal A then then using the representation is irrelevant.  A could be B or F.

Same with words

If "God" means one thing to you and something else to someone else, you are using the word differently so in that discussion A does not equal A.

If you think that "blue" represents a wavelength of light and the other person is simply talking about the EXPERIENCE of "blueness" there will be no communication.

So the bottom line is getting into the same context, using the same terms and evaluating the evidence - how ever that is defined in the context and then like a jury member, making our own judgement of the "truth" we see.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Anijen said:

However, religion (and law) are Presidents Oaks expertise. In the world of science and religion there are some, perhaps few, but still there are some exceptions. For example two right angle next to each other the vertical lines will never cross as seen here with these two letter Ls representing the right angles.

L L

This is a mathematical certainty, but there is an exception. If I were to put those exact right angles on a sphere (picture a globe) then the two vertical lines will over distance grow closer together and eventually cross at the top of the sphere.  I uphold President Oaks as a Prophet, one who speaks for Lord. To me he is an exception and can tell us and I can accept by faith that what he says is true. I can believe that until science tells me it is not true, (I can believe that the earth is the center of the universe until 800 years later science proved it wasn't).

Religion has a history of making scientific claims are false and then having to backpedal on those claims as it becomes increasingly clear that the religious conception was false.  Like your example where religion claimed the earth was the center of the universe, it took many many years for the worlds religions to accept this scientific fact, and only after horrendous acts against those who dared to disagree with religious authorities.  My question to you is, are you willing to be a part of modern day horrendous acts perpetuated by religion today on subjects where they are out of tune with the best evidence of science?  

12 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I do not believe this has been verified by scientist. It has been verified by political parties who have an agenda they are pushing. As far as I know Doctors and Scientist have said there are two biological sexes, male or female. There is the rare exception of the hermaphrodite. Thus, President Oaks is not contradicting nor is ignorant of science of the sexes.

This is just ignorance on your part on this subject, and if you're interested I can point you to some resources that can help.  I too was ignorant on this subject until recent years.  DM me if you are interested and I can share.  I don't want to side track this thread.  

 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One major problem with President Oaks talk is that he didn't keep them separate.  In that very talk he makes claims about gender identity that are ignorant of the science around gender and in contradiction to it.  He should stick with earlier statements about how general authorities aren't experts on many subjects, and gender is one of them.  The doctrine being invented by recent church leaders on this subject is directly harmful to those in the transgender community and ignorant of a growing corpus of scientific understanding.  

No actually he did see the distinction as shown in the early part of the talk.  That was the whole purpose of the discourse on truth- to explain the difference and his role as a RELIGIOUS leader!

His job however was NOT to cross into the scientific zone, but to deliver his RELIGIOUS opinion to the group assembled to hear his RELIGIOUS position.

He affirmed his opinion with strength.  Good for him, and you are free to disagree with his religious opinion and you do.  :)

If you want to analyze ethics with science, you would be the one missing contexts and should google "is vs ought" to understand that statements about what IS have nothing to do with what it OUGHT  to be.  :)

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

No actually he did see the distinction as shown in the early part of the talk.  That was the whole purpose of the discourse on truth- to explain the difference and his role as a RELIGIOUS leader!

His job however was NOT to cross into the scientific zone, but to deliver his RELIGIOUS opinion to the group assembled to hear his RELIGIOUS position.

He affirmed his opinion with strength.  Good for him, and you are free to disagree with his religious opinion and you do.  :)

If you want to analyze ethics with science, you would be the one missing contexts and should google "is vs ought" to understand that statements about what IS have nothing to do with what it OUGHT  to be.  :)

I think that the early portion of his talk was presented for a specific purpose, and that was to deflect criticism that he might receive for portions in the rest of his talk.  But why don't you think his comments about gender crossed over into the scientific zone?  

If he were speaking about finance topics, as someone trained in finance I would think I could evaluate his comments using my professional expertise.  The same with if his talk incorporated things from the medical community or mathematics. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 My question to you is, are you willing to be a part of modern day horrendous acts perpetuated by religion today on subjects where they are out of tune with the best evidence of science?  

Absolutely not. I am not willing to be a part of any horrendous act perpetuated by religion or secular ideology. I tend to be a follower of science. I accept science. One of my degrees was in Anthropology and I accept the scientific proven facts of PreAdamits, a very old earth (4.5 Billion years), etc. I enjoy and rever science. When science and my religious beliefs I hold seem to contradict, I will usually use science to bolster my religious beliefs rather than my religious beliefs to hang on to an idea. 

Out of curiosity what horrendous acts are you referring to when you say "they are out of tune with the best evidence of science?"

 

Quote

This is just ignorance on your part on this subject,

Well if you say so. By your statement here you obviously know me more than I do, in fact, by your statement, you must know what my brain knows and what it does not know. I very rarely have to defend what I know, but for your information and in hope that you do not have to resort to the ad hominem of attacking me rather than the message. Just an FYI I am well educated and knowledgeable of the subject.

 

Quote

and if you're interested I can point you to some resources that can help.  I too was ignorant on this subject until recent years.  DM me if you are interested and I can share.  I don't want to side track this thread.  

Thanks, I always appreciate resources to study.

jjj

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The key is understanding the difference between scientific learning, empirical evidence and religious faith.  These are very different things, that sometimes cross paths, but have very different purposes and outcomes.  

Traditionally, religious thinking has been an appeal to authority, the authority of church leaders and the authority of religious texts.  From these authorities you get dogma.  Dogma typically pushes against questioning and critical thinking.  It often requires conformity with little flexibility.  These things can build a strong group identity at the expense of those who don't fit into the rigid constraints of the group.  

Scientific learning is a process of evaluating evidence in a defined process that attempts to isolate and observe and repeat the observations in a way that we can eliminate bias and better understand how something is working. Its constantly looking for data to disprove the current understandings.  While there can develop sacred cows when it comes to pet theories and precedent, the method is built specifically to break down any fallacious thinking over time.  

I would recommend this book, which talks about this intersection and has some interesting ideas.  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634311264/?coliid=IO71NR76FKY0N&colid=3DENV5AC8WEYS&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

 

This strikes me as a good example of how the construction of a narrative controls everything.  Once you have defined religious  thinking as "an appeal to authority" and science as "a process of evaluating evidence" and constantly looking for data to disprove current understandings" you've created an ideology that organizes everything.  As Kuhn says paradigms are defined by “standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of conceptual, methodological, and metaphysical assumptions.” (Kuhn, 103).   And that is what we get here.  An ideology.  A map.  But how well does the map describe the actual territory, if we make the effort to personally explore?

The problem I have is that my own Mormon training has been to obtain personal experience, and to seek ever greater light and knowledge.  When I personally researched the Bible passages that describe what a person should to find truth, it turns out that they do not boil down to "an appeal to authority" and to uncritically submit to "dogma."

Quote

I've closely read a number of dismissals of religion by people like Freud, and Bertrand Russell, and such, and notice for all their assertion of bold, rational thinking, none of them notice that the religious do not always behave and believe and reason in the ways that they predict with this model.  The best religious thinking is quite different.  And it turns out that Freud and Russell and company demonstrate their own dogmas that have turned out to be dead wrong.

And there is the problem of faith as an inescapable element of science:

Quote

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.  (Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 157-158)

I've occasionally pointed to the building of the CERN super collider and the search for the Higgs Boson as obvious examples of the presence of faith in science.  They made the investment and effort and perform the ongoing research as an expression of faith that their efforts will be rewarded, that the predictions their theoretical models make are sufficiently accurate to justify the extraordinary effort.

I've had skeptics ask me, "How can you know what you know, and believe what you believe?"  (I do think it is a very good question, but better if really asked, and not waved like a talisman to ward off the possibility of belief.)  It is obvious that I have performed my experiments in and done personal research in ways that they had not duplicated.  That is, it is not tradition and dogma, but ongoing and extensive personal experiments that accounts for the differences.

Now there is the problem of how people have to deal with complexity.  I work in the field of Computer Aided Engineering, where "hierarchy is a strategy for dealing with complexity."  It is a very successful strategy.  It means that we trust that other specialists will do their job so that we can do our job, so that the product will work.  The human body is a microcosm of the strategy.   People who use that strategy can also be self critical, and search for "greater light and knowledge" whether in the fields of religion or of secular science.

If I approach the problem differently, say, using the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth,  it turns out that positions 1 and 2 of the 9 positions point to human developmental tendencies to "trust authority" and "in group", which means that the issue is not science versus religious, but human development in the face of the known and the unknown, and the functioning of what Nibley calls, "The gas law of learning: any amount of knowledge will expand to fill any intellectual void, no matter how large."  What it is easy to create a narrative in which the religious are gullible and controlled by authority and dogma, that narrative is selective and incomplete, and not representative of the best that is available.

People at Position 9 of the Perry Scheme, whether believing or secular skeptics, have learned that "the knower contributes to that which is known."  Which is what Jesus told us with the parable of the Sower.  "Know ye not this parable?  How then will ye know all parables?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Absolutely not. I am not willing to be a part of any horrendous act perpetuated by religion or secular ideology. I tend to be a follower of science. I accept science. One of my degrees was in Anthropology and I accept the scientific proven facts of PreAdamits, a very old earth (4.5 Billion years), etc. I enjoy and rever science. When science and my religious beliefs I hold seem to contradict, I will usually use science to bolster my religious beliefs rather than my religious beliefs to hang on to an idea. 

Out of curiosity what horrendous acts are you referring to when you say "they are out of tune with the best evidence of science?"

Ok, this is good.  As for horrendous acts today and in recent memory from out past century of culture, these would include, racism, sexism, anti science ideology (I would even say this contributed to Trump's election), and most pressingly today the bigotry and discrimination towards the LGBTQ community and the ways this influences persecution and suicide.  

15 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Well if you say so. By your statement here you obviously know me more than I do, in fact, by your statement, you must know what my brain knows and what it does not know. I very rarely have to defend what I know, but for your information and in hope that you do not have to resort to the ad hominem of attacking me rather than the message. Just an FYI I am well educated and knowledgeable of the subject.

I have no intetion to attack you.  That is why I offered to share resources that can help educate if you're interested.  Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Doesn't that statement presuppose the truth value of the proposition? That is this seems an analytic proposition based upon the meaning of truth in terms of how we use it not a synthetic one.  

Agreed. :)

Then so was yours so neener neener

😄😜

Link to comment
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I buy the idea there are different spheres of truth. I recognize some push that but I just don't think it holds up. There's just truth and there's claims with different types of evidence. What gets called "faith" really is much more about the type of evidence one can offer to an other person. It's usually extremely limited so at best one can appeal to norms of the group and explicit authority and statements made by people with that authority. But there's no reason to separate science from religious talk although clearly science doesn't say much about God. But we can't say it doesn't say anything - say evolutionary psychology and cognitive science as related to religious cognition.

By different spheres, what I mean is that it is contextual.  Temporal vs spiritual; Celestial vs terrestrial vs telestial vs outerdarknes.  Different laws, different orders, different spheres of light/truth, so to speak.  

I agree that truth is truth, but my religious understanding of truth is that truth is light, and light is spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ aka. light of Christ.  Would a scientist agree with me on that definition and use of truth, or would he be utilizing a different sphere of truth altogether?

Quote

the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (D&C 84:45).

Quote

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path (Psalms 119:105)

That is a totally different definition and sphere of truth from scientific definition and sphere of truth.

I view the light of Christ as truth.  It is the source of all knowledge, power, and light, life, and governance of all things.  It is eternal.  It is in all things and through all things.  We receive and perceive different spheres of that light based upon obedience, etc. until we perceive of the holistic truth and know all things perfectly.  

Quote

 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day (D&C 50:24). 

Quote

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (D&C 93:30)

Quote

it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it (Moses 3:9).

Quote

classes of beings in their destined order or sphere (D&C 77:3).

This all speaks of different spheres of being, of light, of truth...

We receive keys that unlock new spheres, etc. 
 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

But why don't you think his comments about gender crossed over into the scientific zone?  ...

If he were speaking about finance topics, as someone trained in finance I would think I could evaluate his comments using my professional expertise.  The same with if his talk incorporated things from the medical community or mathematics. 

He did not cross over and made that clear as a bell in part III of the talk

"III.
                
                I will now mention some applications of these eternal truths, which can be understood only in light of God’s plan."

He stated it clearly.

"Only in light of God's plan."

If that is not a statement about religion I don't know what is.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, pogi said:

By different spheres, what I mean is that it is contextual.  Temporal vs spiritual; Celestial vs terrestrial vs telestial vs outerdarknes.  Different laws, different orders, different spheres of light/truth, so to speak.  

I agree that truth is truth, but my religious understanding of truth is that truth is light, and light is spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ aka. light of Christ.  Would a scientist agree with me on that definition and use of truth, or would he be utilizing a different sphere of truth altogether?

That is a totally different definition and sphere of truth from scientific definition and sphere of truth.

I view the light of Christ as truth.  It is the source of all knowledge, power, and light, life, and governance of all things.  It is eternal.  It is in all things and through all things.  We receive and perceive different spheres of that light based upon obedience, etc. until we perceive of the holistic truth and know all things perfectly.  

This all speaks of different spheres of being, of light, of truth...

We receive keys that unlock new spheres, etc. 
 

Fabulous. !!! And great quotes

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...