New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would have them excise that paragraph or two because it wasn’t an appeal to science, but an appeal to pseudoscience.  All it ended up illustrating was CES writers and editors and whoever else approved that paragraph didn’t understand the topic.
 

I personally would prefer if they treated the creation scripture as a temple text.

And simply admit that the reality of Adam is something we need to rely on faith for, just as we do the divine nature of Christ.  And that whatever that reality is, we will someday learn through God. 

Are you suggesting (as I did) that any appeal to science to demonstrate that science itself is not a reliable tool for drawing conclusions about the truthfulness of the scriptures, prophetic and (now that you mention it) temple teachings, should not be used?

Being a religious education manual, I take it as a given that any assertion in it requires teh student to rely on faith.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

How would you update this chapter and retain these 3 objectives?

Ben Spackman has already been mentioned. One option I like would be to simply cut the whole chapter out and replace it with a reference to Spackman's works.

If that wasn't possible, I would focus on many of the concepts he writes about:
1) Concordism, emphasizing that it isn't necessary to force our modern cosmologies onto the "flat disc earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell" cosmology of ancient Israel.
2) A solid discussion of genre, and emphasize that the text of Genesis is almost certainly some kind of "creation myth" genre rather than history/science genre.
3) Much of the historical information in the BYU evolution packet is useful, especially to illustrate the teachings/beliefs of Elders Smith and McConkie (that seemed to dominate mid to late 20th century thought in the Church) were never the only viewpoints expressed by apostles/prophets. In many ways, this could be a useful introduction to ideas around apostolic fallibility (like how could an apostle erroneously call a certain belief a "deadly heresy" when said belief is not heretical).

 

[MrShorty]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Being a religious education manual, I take it as a given that any assertion in it requires teh student to rely on faith.

Agreed, but I think we need to be more careful about what we want the student to have faith in. For example, @cinepro's 1980 Ensign article excerpt seems to suggest that the goal is to have faith that uniformitarianism is fundamentally flawed, and that the student should have faith that someday we will find the flaws in uniformitarianism. The emphasis on creationism in the OT institute manual encourages students to have faith in creationism.

IMO, the main goals for faith from a study of the creation accounts in Genesis should be limited to:
1) There is a (monotheistic) God.
2) Said God "created" (whatever that means to the student) the universe.
3) Said God "created" (again whatever that means to the student) in His image (whatever that might mean to the student).
4) Man became "fallen" (there should be lots of room for personal interpretation around how man becomes fallen), which is the reason we need a Redeemer to overcome the stuff that separates us from God.

 

[longview]

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Actually it must not.

Says who?

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It explains how life changes and how the variety of life we see around us today came to be.

No.  There is no dividing line between Abiogenesis and evolutionary change.  Abiogenesis is about continual change.  Therefore Abiogenesis is a proper subset of evolution in general.  The question should be asked:  why have there been no attempts to find evidence of new Abiogenesis in later ages?  Is it because of the overabundance of bacteria that would eat them up?

9 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Of course scientists have their speculations about the beginnings of life but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. To provide a point of reference, books may briefly discuss those possibilities (primordial soup, etc.)

If they are true scientists, they must want to explore what came before the trilobites  and earlier life forms.  All the way back to krills and other microscopic critters.

9 hours ago, katherine the great said:

because naturally discussing evolution would cause students to ask questions like “well okay but how did life begin in the first place?”

Oh?  Why, we can't just let the little tykes begin to ponder on how everything came to be?  The "narrative" is carefully crafted and controlled by the dominant collegiate elites.  Too many researchers and professors have had their careers derailed and hounded out of favor because of their attempts to provide new perspectives on certain evidences.

[Canadiandude]

Yeah this is a frustrating subject. When I was a practicing member and young undergraduate student visiting my parent’s ward, I’d often have to correct the teacher that the ‘First Presidency takes no official position on the degree of truthfulness in evolutionary theory’

Turns out I was only partially correct as prominent church leaders have taken (at times ‘official’) positions on the matter, but that this eventually moderated into the present day and position.

President Nelson himself has criticized evolutionary theory as an official church representative in the past, but some could argue that he didn’t present these positions as a united position of the First Presidency & the 12, revealed by unanimous revelation.

Turns out however that the majority of the church’s practices, teachings, & doctrines  were also not produced through such an institutionalized manner.

My theory is that the church wants to have it both ways: Claim to be god’s most legitimate authority on the earth while dodging responsibility when a doctrine or policy proves deeply flawed or patently false.

There’s been a lot of odd comparisons made here between the corrective processes of the scientific method and the ‘ongoing restoration’ (cute and historically-specific catch-phrase btw). 

In my estimation, the rigour of the natural sciences has come much farther in evaluating the reliability, & validity behind the production of their truth claims than the Brethren ever have.
 

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Ben Spackman has already been mentioned. One option I like would be to simply cut the whole chapter out and replace it with a reference to Spackman's works.

If that wasn't possible, I would focus on many of the concepts he writes about:
1) Concordism, emphasizing that it isn't necessary to force our modern cosmologies onto the "flat disc earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell" cosmology of ancient Israel.
2) A solid discussion of genre, and emphasize that the text of Genesis is almost certainly some kind of "creation myth" genre rather than history/science genre.
3) Much of the historical information in the BYU evolution packet is useful, especially to illustrate the teachings/beliefs of Elders Smith and McConkie (that seemed to dominate mid to late 20th century thought in the Church) were never the only viewpoints expressed by apostles/prophets. In many ways, this could be a useful introduction to ideas around apostolic fallibility (like how could an apostle erroneously call a certain belief a "deadly heresy" when said belief is not heretical).

 

 

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Agreed, but I think we need to be more careful about what we want the student to have faith in. For example, @cinepro's 1980 Ensign article excerpt seems to suggest that the goal is to have faith that uniformitarianism is fundamentally flawed, and that the student should have faith that someday we will find the flaws in uniformitarianism. The emphasis on creationism in the OT institute manual encourages students to have faith in creationism.

IMO, the main goals for faith from a study of the creation accounts in Genesis should be limited to:
1) There is a (monotheistic) God.
2) Said God "created" (whatever that means to the student) the universe.
3) Said God "created" (again whatever that means to the student) in His image (whatever that might mean to the student).
4) Man became "fallen" (there should be lots of room for personal interpretation around how man becomes fallen), which is the reason we need a Redeemer to overcome the stuff that separates us from God.

 

Yes, it might well benefit from a complete overhaul but somehow the basic fundamentals need to be kept intact. I think the section about the age of the earth is handled reasonably well, and that the section about the divine origin of humanity could follow that approach.

The tension between secular and religious doctrine (discussed in another thread) runs throughout almost every Institute subject these days, so maybe a primer on that at the beginning of every Institute course and manual would be useful.

I like your idea of teaching how the record in Genesis (and other Old Testament records) can be taken or applied either literally or figuratively as the case requires. And to have a section that refers students to the BYU evolution packet you mentioned, maybe for extra credit for independent study given class time constraints. I think a description of how the Lord communicates eternal truths through the working models we have (getting to your idea about cosmology) does not mean the working model itself is the eternal truth. Scientific theories are working models that are continually improved, while  eternal principles are continually revealed line upon line / grace for grace until a fulness is received.

I think students still need the freedom to believe stupid things as long as they are committed and striving to keeping the covenants to the satisfaction of our membership requirements. Maybe that can be the Institute Manual motto. 😊

I think it would be great, but I’m not sure how much room there is for students to discuss their various perspectives on what God is ( a single individual, the Three we call the Godhead, a Divine Council headed by couples, The Mother, etc.), the meaning of creation and image (literally and figuratively) and he Fall, etc.

Edited November 8, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

@MrShortyand @Calm, what do you think is the best way to share these ideas with the people who can do something with them at CES?

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The tension between secular and religious doctrine...

I kind of agree, but I don't particularly like this comparison (same with "the Church vs. the world"). Considering the ideas behind creationism and evolutionism, which ideas are "secular doctrine" and which are "religious doctrine"? In a religious vs. secular paradigm, I would say that all of the points we argue about are secular ideas. Some of them are couched in Biblical language and cite scripture and come from our own apostles and prophets, but the ideas are secular nonetheless. Within the Church (and broader Christianity), The religious doctrines (like the existence of God or we are His children) are not being debated.

Personally, I would prefer something like Mason's truth cart. Mason has said that we have historically crammed too much into our truth carts (including Elders McConkie and Smith putting creationism into the truth cart). If I were trying to express my beliefs on this, I would emphasize which (few) ideas belong in the truth cart (like the existence of God), and then be clear that everything else is interesting but needs to stay outside of the truth cart. No need to explore every students' ideas in class, but grant them the freedom to explore their own ideas. Don't tell them something belongs in the truth cart that does not.

As for getting these ideas to CES? No idea. I'm not sure it's necessary. I expect somewhere in the next few years, these old manuals will quietly disappear from the official publications list and, given enough time, eventually fade into history. The Church will keep saying, "stop using old, outdated manuals and focus on the new manuals." without ever actually retracting or disavowing the wrong things taught in the old manuals, which will delay their fading into history.

Edited November 8, 2021 by MrShorty
minor + typos

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

@MrShortyand @Calm, what do you think is the best way to share these ideas with the people who can do something with them at CES?

They used to have a feedback form on the website. I haven’t used it lately, so don’t know if it would work. I submitted once info for a correction on something on the website, can’t remember what though. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

They used to have a feedback form on the website. I haven’t used it lately, so don’t know if it would work. I submitted once info for a correction on something on the website, can’t remember what though. 

Thank you I think I'll try it... hey let's all send in our ideas!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I kind of agree, but I don't particularly like this comparison (same with "the Church vs. the world"). Considering the ideas behind creationism and evolutionism, which ideas are "secular doctrine" and which are "religious doctrine"? In a religious vs. secular paradigm, I would say that all of the points we argue about are secular ideas. Some of them are couched in Biblical language and cite scripture and come from our own apostles and prophets, but the ideas are secular nonetheless. Within the Church (and broader Christianity), The religious doctrines (like the existence of God or we are His children) are not being debated.

Personally, I would prefer something like Mason's truth cart. Mason has said that we have historically crammed too much into our truth carts (including Elders McConkie and Smith putting creationism into the truth cart). If I were trying to express my beliefs on this, I would emphasize which (few) ideas belong in the truth cart (like the existence of God), and then be clear that everything else is interesting but needs to stay outside of the truth cart. No need to explore every students' ideas in class, but grant them the freedom to explore their own ideas. Don't tell them something belongs in the truth cart that does not.

As for getting these ideas to CES? No idea. I'm not sure it's necessary. I expect somewhere in the next few years, these old manuals will quietly disappear from the official publications list and, given enough time, eventually fade into history. The Church will keep saying, "stop using old, outdated manuals and focus on the new manuals." without ever actually retracting or disavowing the wrong things taught in the old manuals, which will delay their fading into history.

I think this is why the Church doesn’t teach religious principles about the Creation and the Fall through creationism. So yes, I say leave it out, and leave it out entirely, even for the purpose for which it is currently included, which isn’t necessarily wrong to do or necessitating disavowal. 

Regarding the truth cart idea, certainly a distillation of what is important and essential is always in order. When melding scholarship and faith (Elder Holland had a talk about “disciple-scholars”), the important and essential things for both areas may well end up resulting in a spiritually-heavy approach, given what Institute is designed for.

Concerns about old vs. new manuals might be briefly addressed in the primer chapter(s).

[mfbukowski]

Just from doing the evolution discussion thing on this board, year after year, I know there are still tons of literalists members who are not ready to see much of this as symbols and allegories, and might actually leave the church if they thought some things were not literal.

Lotsa people think I am a total apostate for seeing things as "the philosophies of men," while every word uttered by a human is a philosophy of humans made to fit human understanding, even scripture.

I think the church is moving about the fastest it can without losing members.  And still people leave because of a word change in the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

And then we are all human, even general authorities, believing what we believed as kids

It's a tight rope.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you I think I'll try it... hey let's all send in our ideas!

Apostate agitator! 😡 

 

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Apostate agitator! 😡 

 

Ha ha I was hoping you would have something to add from the philosophical standpoint that might be included in the "primer" section! Join us... don't read this book!

Edited November 8, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just from doing the evolution discussion thing on this board, year after year, I know there are still tons of literalists members who are not ready to see much of this as symbols and allegories, and might actually leave the church if they thought some things were not literal.

Lotsa people think I am a total apostate for seeing things as "the philosophies of men," while every word uttered by a human is a philosophy of humans made to fit human understanding, even scripture.

I think the church is moving about the fastest it can without losing members.  And still people leave because of a word change in the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

And then we are all human, even general authorities, believing what we believed as kids

It's a tight rope.

I do think some of the softer suggestion made in the last few pages might be considered by the folks at CES and approved by the trustees. I mean something as simple as "Why do we study evolution?" in Chapter 2. I think there's an answer that would satisfy, enough, most students (and even members that see the manual on discussion boards).

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you I think I'll try it... hey let's all send in our ideas!

Post it here if you find it. I’m game.

I don’t need people to arrive at the same state of agnosticism I’m at but I do think it’s high time for greater room for nuance.

I’d rather that fewer Sunday School lessons require a brave student to have to educate their peers on the basic mechanics of evolutionary theory.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Post it here if you find it. I’m game.

I don’t need people to arrive at the same state of agnosticism I’m at but I do think it’s high time for greater room for nuance.

I’d rather that fewer Sunday School lessons require a brave student to have to educate their peers on the basic mechanics of evolutionary theory.

One need not be an agnostic to accept evolution, as long as we have an immanent God who is an "organizer" who can fiddle with the "laws of nature" at will. And then of course the story of Adam is about "everyman" if we see it that way.

We all have our own Falls from innocence 

[Canadiandude]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just from doing the evolution discussion thing on this board, year after year, I know there are still tons of literalists members who are not ready to see much of this as symbols and allegories, and might actually leave the church if they thought some things were not literal.

Lotsa people think I am a total apostate for seeing things as "the philosophies of men," while every word uttered by a human is a philosophy of humans made to fit human understanding, even scripture.

I think the church is moving about the fastest it can without losing members.  And still people leave because of a word change in the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

And then we are all human, even general authorities, believing what we believed as kids

It's a tight rope.

Maybe these are exactly the members worth challenging though?

I mean, aren’t these the same kinds of members that alienate marginalized members and pretend their social & political views are exclusively divine?

There are many lazy learners in the world, but I can’t help wonder if these aren’t the members least encouraged to think critically and deeply about the issues.

[Canadiandude]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One need not be an agnostic to accept evolution, as long as we have an immanent God who is an "organizer" who can fiddle with the "laws of nature" at will. And then of course the story of Adam is about "everyman" if we see it that way.

We all have our own Falls from innocence 

Did I ever suggest that to believe evolution is to be/become agnostic?

In fact, if you had read my earlier comment you would have realized that I was an evolutionist first, and arrived at agnosticism later in life.

I’m quite aware of the possibility of being a faithful member of the church while supportive of the theory of evolution as a means of creation.

My post was meant in support of your own.
 

There’s nothing like having to defend Darwin from being compared with Korihor the Antichrist, alone, during an early morning seminary class.

(Another story explaining my grudge against anti-evolutionists)

Edited November 8, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

OK there's a feedback tag that provides a pop-up to comment on sections of the manual selected by the user. It shows a range of emojis labels from "hate" to "love" and a box to comment.

I wrote:

"Hate" is not the word I'd really like to use, but I think there is too much emphasis in this "Points to Ponder" section on the perils of organic evolution rather than the perils of drawing conclusions about faith from scientific or secular evidence, 100-year old ideas from "creationism" included. I would leave all that out and maybe explain "Why do we study organic evolution?" with an eye toward Elder Holland's (Maxwell's?) thoughts on the "disciple-scholar". Possibly include a link to BYU's evolution study packet with remarks from our General Authorities. The way this is presented comes across as setting up some kind of ill-informed debate between the sciences when the concern, I think, is really abut how students can handle the tension between secular and religious doctrine, the literal and figurative value of the ancient scriptures, etc.  Thank you!

[Canadiandude]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

OK there's a feedback tag that provides a pop-up to comment on sections of the manual selected by the user. It shows a range of emojis labels from "hate" to "love" and a box to comment.

I wrote:

"Hate" is not the word I'd really like to use, but I think there is too much emphasis in this "Points to Ponder" section on the perils of organic evolution rather than the perils of drawing conclusions about faith from scientific or secular evidence, 100-year old ideas from "creationism" included. I would leave all that out and maybe explain "Why do we study organic evolution?" with an eye toward Elder Holland's (Maxwell's?) thoughts on the "disciple-scholar". Possibly include a link to BYU's evolution study packet with remarks from our General Authorities. The way this is presented comes across as setting up some kind of ill-informed debate between the sciences when the concern, I think, is really abut how students can handle the tension between secular and religious doctrine, the literal and figurative value of the ancient scriptures, etc.  Thank you!

Link? The manuals I had as an undergrad are likely different and I’d like to add my support on the same manual.

Phrasing is good. Most organizations likely take ‘hate’ responses with a degree of defensiveness, so I’ll remember that in my own.

I def don’t want other students to experience what I did.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Maybe these are exactly the members worth challenging though?

I mean, aren’t these the same kinds of members that alienate marginalized members and pretend their social & political views are exclusively divine?

There are many lazy learners in the world, but I can’t help wonder if these aren’t the members least encouraged to think critically and deeply about the issues.

Absolutely not.  You are right there proving your own position taken on faith!!  Why should anyone "think critically and deeply about these issues" when do ing so does not give us"absolute truth" anyway?  

You take that on faith that we "should" do that and not just read, say the Bible, literally.  That is the great illusion of modernism- that WE smarties have all the answers and everyone else is stupid.

We take all this on faith- WHATEVER our position is or what we believe, and besides they might be "right" for all we know.  Bertrand Russel, athiest and logician,  one of the key philosophers of our time, noted that there is no way to prove that this world did not flash into existence 5 minutes ago and that all our memories and knowledge were implants of some kind.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

He did not believe that of course, but there is no reasonable argument to show that that paradigm is "false" by reason alone.

And so to with religion.   As far as I know every word of scripture MIGHT be literally exactly on the money.   It might be a science text after all!

But I personally do not believe that myself, after studying philosophy for over 50 years.  But I cannot prove it "false" and everything we say about God may be bunk or may be exactly "correct".   It is hubris that encourages us to believe that WE are the only ones who know "how it really is".  After 2500 years of Western Philosophy NO ONE has even been able to give a "provable" definition of "truth".    The best we have are theories which change fairly regularly.   Is Pluto a "planet" this week? 

And so I go by "best paradigms".   What works for me in my world view is what I call "truth" and in 2500 years of western philosophy NO ONE has come up with anything better.

Do not ever think your view is "superior" to anyone else's because yours is just as vulnerable to attack as his.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Link? The manuals I had as an undergrad are likely different and I’d like to add my support on the same manual.

Phrasing is good. Most organizations likely take ‘hate’ responses with a degree of defensiveness, so I’ll remember that in my own.

I def don’t want other students to experience what I did.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

just click on the "Feedback" tab when you find the section you would like to comment on.

I'm wondering if this isn't a search engine quality improvement tool instead of a way to comment on the content / curriculum, though.

There's another pop-up link after you submit your ideas, to get a response from the website. It then gives an error message, but also provides another link where you can reiterate your remarks (so copy the first set).

I am going to pursue finding out how to provide direct feedback on the manual content itself.

 

UPDATE: @Canadiandude @Calm @MrShorty

Here's a more direct feedback option, at the bottom of any of the CES pages

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/feedback/?lang=eng

Edited November 8, 2021 by CV75

[katherine the great]

18 hours ago, longview said:

No.  There is no dividing line between Abiogenesis and evolutionary change. 

Wrong. Abiogenesis It’s about the transition from inorganic to organic. Evolution only deals with the organic.

 

18 hours ago, longview said:

If they are true scientists, they must want to explore what came before the trilobites  and earlier life forms.  All the way back to krills and other microscopic critters.

They may want to “explore” those things but we tend to emphasize the things that are within our area of expertise and leave the other expert opinions to the actual experts who have studied a particular field.

 

18 hours ago, longview said:

Oh?  Why, we can't just let the little tykes begin to ponder on how everything came to be?  The "narrative" is carefully crafted and controlled by the dominant collegiate elites.  Too many researchers and professors have had their careers derailed and hounded out of favor because of their attempts to provide new perspectives on certain evidences.

Well if you are so concerned about it why don’t you write your own textbook?

The scientists who tend to get a lot of grief are the ones who propose a hypothesis or theory that usually focuses on one particular find or test and disregard the body of evidence that we already have. Like the very well published geneticist who proposed that humans came about through a union of a primate and a pig. Okay. There’s absolutely no evidence of that, it would be maybe theoretically possible but so unlikely as to be rendered “impossible”,  and he had absolutely no credible ideas on when or where this remarkable event could possibly have happened. A much better explanation lies in the years of well documented fossils, biology, and genetics that point away from a porcine origin for our species. That’s not to say that new evidence can’t eventually be accepted into the prevailing theories but it is a slow process which requires other scientists’ supportive testing.

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Absolutely not.  You are right there proving your own position taken on faith!!  Why should anyone "think critically and deeply about these issues" when do ing so does not give us"absolute truth" anyway?  

You take that on faith that we "should" do that and not just read, say the Bible, literally.  That is the great illusion of modernism- that WE smarties have all the answers and everyone else is stupid.

We take all this on faith- WHATEVER our position is or what we believe, and besides they might be "right" for all we know.  Bertrand Russel, athiest and logician,  one of the key philosophers of our time, noted that there is no way to prove that this world did not flash into existence 5 minutes ago and that all our memories and knowledge were implants of some kind.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

He did not believe that of course, but there is no reasonable argument to show that that paradigm is "false" by reason alone.

And so to with religion.   As far as I know every word of scripture MIGHT be literally exactly on the money.   It might be a science text after all!

But I personally do not believe that myself, after studying philosophy for over 50 years.  But I cannot prove it "false" and everything we say about God may be bunk or may be exactly "correct".   It is hubris that encourages us to believe that WE are the only ones who know "how it really is".  After 2500 years of Western Philosophy NO ONE has even been able to give a "provable" definition of "truth".    The best we have are theories which change fairly regularly.   Is Pluto a "planet" this week? 

And so I go by "best paradigms".   What works for me in my world view is what I call "truth" and in 2500 years of western philosophy NO ONE has come up with anything better.

Do not ever think your view is "superior" to anyone else's because yours is just as vulnerable to attack as his.

I 100% disagree. First off- when we speak of the sciences, we do not claim to ‘prove’ anything, but rather we make arguments, based on evidence, that can suggest a truth claim that can be reproduced, tested and tried in turn.

~

Furthermore, you never did answer my question:

Did I ever make the claim that to be an evolutionist is to be/become agnostic?

~

Not all arguments are equal, or equally supported by current evidence, and having a position that something like evolutionary theory is better supported by the evidence (so far) is not to precludes one’s possibility of being convinced differently by further evidence. 

~
 

I get that you’re post-modernist, but I’ve no obligation to accept your ontological commitments.

~

If we were to never discount any claim that failed to rigorously exercise its burden of proof, using both evidence and arguments that are sufficiently valid & reliable , then what happens to decision-making? Knowledge production?

It’s a post-modern wormhole.

~

You are completely misrepresenting Bertrand Russel, his position and his ‘teapot’ as it were.

‘The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

Were it otherwise, the thinker would become trapped in having to find evidence against every conspiracy theory; every un-evidentiary possibility; every conceivable argument under and beyond the sun.

A good recipe for intellectual paralysis. 

~

The church makes truth claims. It also purports to be the only divinely-legitimate institution where saving ordinances received, and doctrines most correctly taught. 
 

Many of these claims can be empirically tested, and we too, can also examine the societal effects of many of these doctrines, policies & practices.

~

Methodological naturalism makes no claim to ‘superiority’ as it were.

It only asks that arguments be supported, based upon the weight of their supporting evidence, which must be demonstrated as sufficiently valid and reliable relative to other claims.

As more evidence is brought forward our models change.

~

But yes, either rigorously ‘Put up’, or get used to some serious questions re: the validity & reliability of your truth claims.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Canadiandude
Formatting