New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[mfbukowski]

Assuming that there is anyone actually still following this thread which seems highly unlikely, except for @CV75 I would like to make a point about truth and beliefs as held by Pragmatists.  We have had many discussions about these ideas, so if nothing else, this expression might be useful to him.

@CV75I would like your opinion on the way I put this.

In looking at paradigms, the Pragmatic way of seeing things is to look at the FUNCTION of the BELIEF in society, and not whether or not it "corresponds to reality"

So the statement "Infections are caused by germs" is USEFUL in society BECAUSE acting on that proposition itself is useful.  So armed with the belief that infections are caused by germs, science finds ways to kill germs.  They experiement and find substances that kill germs, and so we get antibiotics.

The scientific FUNCTION in society for the idea that "germs cause infections" is that one can stop infections by killing germs.  THAT alone makes it a justifiable statement, not because it "corresponds" to a reality we cannot experience directly, but because USING antibiotics allows people to live longer, which is a VERY useful function and discovery.

So if a statement produces desirable and useful results, we call it "true".

That is how and why science is intellectually justifiable because it produces BELIEFS which are highly USEFUL, not because they "correspond to reality", since "reality" itself cannot be experienced- what we experience is sense data as filtered by a human mind and spirit.

We can never get out of our own heads to reach "reality" as it is in itself BECAUSE everything we experience comes through a human mind!!

So all we get to talk about is our EXPERIENCES of "reality".

What we experience then is pragmatically the ONLY REALITY we can know.

So today is Veteran's Day and we see many derved and heart felt tributes to our Veterans who died for their country.   I am personally grateful for what they have done for me personally, especially during the Viet Nam war.

Is it possible to justify the rational belief that the proposition "It is noble that one would die for one's country" can be justified rationally?  In what sense is that statement true or false?  In what way if any, is this a "true" statement?  That is also a useful statement to study because it is kind of like the idea that "God exists", which cannot be justified rationally due to lack of empirical evidence that it is true.

First there is the view of logical positivism which states that IF a statement cannot be verified by objective evidence, it is nonsense.

As I have said more than once in this thread, this is a self-contradictory way of seeing the world BECAUSE the statement  "If a statement cannot be verified by objective evidence, it is nonsense" cannot ITSELF be shown to be true with objective evidence, which then means by its own statement, that statement is NONSENSE.

So by its own assertion, the idea that to be "true" the statement imust have objective evidence, is itself NONSENSE.

So how could one justify the idea that" it is noble to die for one's country if necessary"?  CAN it be justified at all?  In what sense is such a statement true or false?

The pragmatist again goes to the FUNCTION of the proposition, not its content.

What is the FUNCTION of the belief that "It is noble to die for one's country"?   How does that belief help society?   How can it be rationally shown to be a "true" proposition, even though it cannot be shown to be true through objective empirical evidence?

The BELIEF is USEFUL because as a society, it underlines the benefit to society of having individuals willing to give up their lives for the collective society and makes it noble.

And it IS noble!   The statement is justified as "true" because the FUNCTION of the statement is to construct the ideal that dying for one's country will give one a noble death which will be noted and the individual will be honored as a hero, a justified conclusion.

And yes, we believe that to be a correct, in my opinion, and a useful function for belief in the proposition.

What is the FUNCTION of the belief that it is wrong to kill people?  We can look at that as a subset of ethical and moral beliefs.  What is the Function of belief in moral principles?

There are benefits to society in making it more peaceful.

The central idea here is that “truth” can be defined as the fruits of a USEFUL PARADIGM alone even though no objective evidence is possible

Now what is the FUNCTION of the idea that "God exists" or that "what the church teaches is true?"

The FUNCTION of LDS beliefs rationally is that it puts together parts of the PARADIGMS  of Christianity that have had serious flaws, like for example the notion that God would condemn unbaptized innocent babies to hell, and many others.

These beliefs provide believers with meaning in their lives, and good to society for the belief that one should be law abiding and peaceful citizens.

One could look at every single “truth claim” of the church and understand how the church position is beneficial to society.

It provides a consistent belief set giving the meaning for their lives in setting up a paradigm about where one comes from, where one is going after death and the purpose of life as service to others and the desire to constantly become better people.

So science teaches use USEFUL paradigms in many many ways, which can be objectively verified.

Religion and morality teach USEFUL paradigms to give mankind useful answers to giving them meaning in life and which CANNOT be verified objectively, yet the believer finds satisfying, and are useful in producing an orderly society.

An orderly society allows the populace to live in peace, with meaningful lives and goals which are actually achievable, and thus in one sense “empirically true”.  Regardless of that mode of justification, the mere fact that one feels peace in one’s beliefs, which is the PURPOSE of the belief, justifies it as much as the belief that germs cause infections FUNCTIONS to actually cure infections

In both situation, the BELIEF is justified by the experience of seeing the infection become better, or seeing one’s life have more value and purpose.

In short the proposition WORKS to produce the desired end, therefore it is “true”.

It is NOT true because it “corresponds to the world outside” because we cannot perceive the world independent of our human perceptions.

It works because we see the efficacy of the BELIEF ITSELF and fulfills our needs.   The BELIEF is a useful tool itself.

In Pragmatism you are always looking at the FUNCTION of the BELIEF, both in scientific and religious theories, not its correspondence to a world we cannot experience, because as humans that world is beyond out abilities to directly experience. 

Does the BELIEF help us in some useful way?  THAT becomes the question 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Assuming that there is anyone actually still following this thread which seems highly unlikely, except for @CV75 I would like to make a point about truth and beliefs as held by Pragmatists.  We have had many discussions about these ideas, so if nothing else, this expression might be useful to him.

@CV75I would like your opinion on the way I put this.

In looking at paradigms, the Pragmatic way of seeing things is to look at the FUNCTION of the BELIEF in society, and not whether or not it "corresponds to reality"

So the statement "Infections are caused by germs" is USEFUL in society BECAUSE acting on that proposition itself is useful.  So armed with the belief that infections are caused by germs, science finds ways to kill germs.  They experiement and find substances that kill germs, and so we get antibiotics.

The scientific FUNCTION in society for the idea that "germs cause infections" is that one can stop infections by killing germs.  THAT alone makes it a justifiable statement, not because it "corresponds" to a reality we cannot experience directly, but because USING antibiotics allows people to live longer, which is a VERY useful function and discovery.

So if a statement produces desirable and useful results, we call it "true".

That is how and why science is intellectually justifiable because it produces BELIEFS which are highly USEFUL, not because they "correspond to reality", since "reality" itself cannot be experienced- what we experience is sense data as filtered by a human mind and spirit.

We can never get out of our own heads to reach "reality" as it is in itself BECAUSE everything we experience comes through a human mind!!

So all we get to talk about is our EXPERIENCES of "reality".

What we experience then is pragmatically the ONLY REALITY we can know.

So today is Veteran's Day and we see many derved and heart felt tributes to our Veterans who died for their country.   I am personally grateful for what they have done for me personally, especially during the Viet Nam war.

Is it possible to justify the rational belief that the proposition "It is noble that one would die for one's country" can be justified rationally?  In what sense is that statement true or false?  In what way if any, is this a "true" statement?  That is also a useful statement to study because it is kind of like the idea that "God exists", which cannot be justified rationally due to lack of empirical evidence that it is true.

First there is the view of logical positivism which states that IF a statement cannot be verified by objective evidence, it is nonsense.

As I have said more than once in this thread, this is a self-contradictory way of seeing the world BECAUSE the statement  "If a statement cannot be verified by objective evidence, it is nonsense" cannot ITSELF be shown to be true with objective evidence, which then means by its own statement, that statement is NONSENSE.

So by its own assertion, the idea that to be "true" the statement imust have objective evidence, is itself NONSENSE.

So how could one justify the idea that" it is noble to die for one's country if necessary"?  CAN it be justified at all?  In what sense is such a statement true or false?

The pragmatist again goes to the FUNCTION of the proposition, not its content.

What is the FUNCTION of the belief that "It is noble to die for one's country"?   How does that belief help society?   How can it be rationally shown to be a "true" proposition, even though it cannot be shown to be true through objective empirical evidence?

The BELIEF is USEFUL because as a society, it underlines the benefit to society of having individuals willing to give up their lives for the collective society and makes it noble.

And it IS noble!   The statement is justified as "true" because the FUNCTION of the statement is to construct the ideal that dying for one's country will give one a noble death which will be noted and the individual will be honored as a hero, a justified conclusion.

And yes, we believe that to be a correct, in my opinion, and a useful function for belief in the proposition.

What is the FUNCTION of the belief that it is wrong to kill people?  We can look at that as a subset of ethical and moral beliefs.  What is the Function of belief in moral principles?

There are benefits to society in making it more peaceful.

The central idea here is that “truth” can be defined as the fruits of a USEFUL PARADIGM alone even though no objective evidence is possible

Now what is the FUNCTION of the idea that "God exists" or that what the church teaches is true?"

The FUNCTION of LDS beliefs rationally is that it puts together parts of the PARADIGMS  of Christianity that have had serious flaws, like for example the notion that God would condemn unbaptized innocent babies to hell, and many others.

These beliefs provide believers with meaning in their lives, and good to society for the belief that one should be law abiding and peaceful citizens.

One could look at every single “truth claim” of the church and understand how the church position is beneficial to society.

It provides a consistent belief set giving the meaning for their lives in setting up a paradigm about where one comes from, where one is going after death and the purpose of life as service to others and the desire to constantly become better people.

So science teaches use USEFUL paradigms in many many ways, which can be objectively verified.

Religion and morality teach USEFUL paradigms to give mankind useful answers to giving them meaning in life and which CANNOT be verified objectively, yet the believer finds satisfying, and are useful in producing an orderly society.

An orderly society allows the populace to live in peace, with meaningful lives and goals which are actually achievable, and thus in one sense “empirically true”.  Regardless of that mode of justification, the mere fact that one feels peace in one’s beliefs, which is the PURPOSE of the belief, justifies it as much as the belief that germs cause infections FUNCTIONS to actually cure infections

In both situation, the BELIEF is justified by the experience of seeing the infection become better, or seeing one’s life have more value and purpose.

In short the proposition WORKS to produce the desired end, therefore it is “true”.

It is NOT true because it “corresponds to the world outside” because we cannot perceive the world independent of our human perceptions.

It works because we see the efficacy of the belief and gives us what we need.

 

I think that is a great way to describe the pragmatic paradigm: the application of a statement produces results, and when desirable and useful results are produced, the statement, the application and the results are "true” or “reality”. Each process is subjective because someone is making the statement, applying the statement, experiencing and evaluating the results (first or second hand), and determining whether they are true, real or reality.

In this paradigm, the term “objectivity” takes on a different meaning, with limited application to the standardized means of observing and reporting results. This standardization is a subjective process as well -- someone(s) develops the agreed-upon standard.

For example, an objective survey can measure how many people of a sample appreciate our vets, and even rank their level of appreciation from 0 to 10, and a lie detector might follow up on their answers, as well as a fMRI and MEG to measure the level of activation of the part of the brain generating this mental state and so forth, but these do not measure the existence of appreciation, for that is somewhere in the inaccessible universe of the respondents’ brains. And who know what they mean by “appreciation”, anyway?.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

For example, an objective survey can measure how many people of a sample appreciate our vets, and even rank their level of appreciation from 0 to 10, and a lie detector might follow up on their answers, as well as a fMRI and MEG to measure the level of activation of the part of the brain generating this mental state and so forth, but these do not measure the existence of appreciation, for that is somewhere in the inaccessible universe of the respondents’ brains. And who know what they mean by “appreciation”, anyway?.

Agreed, that would be is an objective analysis of how many people believed the proposition to be "true" but it would not make it more or less "true" or "false" for those who believed or did not believe it to be true.

Either the belief is efficacious for the individiual or it is not.  I would think that for most vets, the paradigm would be true and for those opposed to military service it would be false.

 It's a matter of opinion, like for example "Everyone ought to vote for x poitical party, or  be a Catholic"

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agreed, that would be is an objective analysis of how many people believed the proposition to be "true" but it would not make it more or less "true" or "false" for those who believed or did not believe it to be true.

Either the belief is efficacious for the individiual or it is not.  I would think that for most vets, the paradigm would be true and for those opposed to military service it would be false.

 It's a matter of opinion, like for example "Everyone ought to vote for x poitical party, or  be a Catholic"

So now we move on to the efficaciousness of the evolutionary theories and the Church doctrines of the "origin of man". Both can be said to be efficacious by the same person, though they cover different aspects and scope of the same inquiry. But I am interested in hearing any ideas or examples of what the scientific, theoretical and religious, doctrinal approaches have in common with regards to the inquiry.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

So now we move on to the efficaciousness of the evolutionary theories and the Church doctrines of the "origin of man". Both can be said to be efficacious by the same person, though they cover different aspects and scope of the same inquiry. But I am interested in hearing any ideas or examples of what the scientific, theoretical and religious, doctrinal approaches have in common with regards to the inquiry.

Well for me, as you imply, BOTH accounts are useful or "true" in their contexts.

The Adam story teaches us how a spiritual fall can generate useful  lessons about the natural consequences of breaking mores, and how repentance can prompt the forgiveness of others.

Also both evolution and the Adam story teach, like The Didache, the "way of life" vs the "way of death"

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Its evolution!

You do what the environment/ community dictates and you live, the wages of "sin", by not fitting with the environment leads to death.

You commit adultery and you may find a husband coming after you.

If you are a bison and the environment changes, you may be on the road to death. 

If you adapt to the new circumstances ( "repent" or change your ways) you are back on the road of life.

Evolution and the gospel.

Live in harmony and you will have a long and happy life, and lots of happy babies to pass those ideas down the line

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well for me, as you imply, BOTH accounts are useful or "true" in their contexts.

The Adam story teaches us how a spiritual fall can generate useful  lessons about the natural consequences of breaking mores, and how repentance can prompt the forgiveness of others.

Also both evolution and the Adam story teach, like The Didache, the "way of life" vs the "way of death"

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Its evolution!

You do what the environment/ community dictates and you live, the wages of "sin", by not fitting with the environment leads to death.

You commit adultery and you may find a husband coming after you.

If you are a bison and the environment changes, you may be on the road to death. 

If you adapt to the new circumstances ( "repent" or change your ways) you are back on the road of life.

Evolution and the gospel.

Live in harmony and you will have a long and happy life, and lots of happy babies to pass those ideas down the line

Yes, and what I am now looking for, it they can be provided, are any ideas or examples where the scientific, theoretical and religious, doctrinal approaches share the same context in their inquiries, as suggested (I think) by the other poster.

[Teancum]

On 11/10/2021 at 10:16 PM, mfbukowski said:

Excellent.

And so there is no reason to more waste time on this.

We just cannot communicate which has been frustrating beyond belief.

This seems to be a challenge for you.  Maybe you just don't explain your positions all that well?

Edited November 12, 2021 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This seems to be a challenge for you.  Maybe you just don't explain your positions all that well?

Well I am sure that is the case, but the concepts are fairly complex.  Most people still believe in an invisible reality that we cannot experience, and some are vociferous about their error.

It's hard to learn that you don't know what "reality" is, and it would be natural to see it as it has been seen for at least 2000 years since Plato set it up and it got inserted into Christianity.   That was such a shame.

It seems no one understands the Rorty quote below either, but for me, when I first glanced at it, it was like a breath of fresh air and was a key indication of a method by which religious experience could be justified, and I thought that would work for "everyman".   Instead everyone reads it as if it is a manifesto for "brains in a vat"

If folks cannot get the Rorty quote, I honestly doubt that I could say it more clearly.

But then I had 30 years experience reading philosophy in that vein so perhaps it was easier for me.  Yet Rorty is supposedly the "lucid" philosopher.   So if you cannot understand the lucid philosopher, I guess I should not expect anyone to understand little old me.   

But thank God I am glad that I have helped several here.   I wonder why some get it and some don't, but I suspect I really do know the answer.   I guess some just don't have a philosophy gene while others do.

Edited November 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This seems to be a challenge for you.  Maybe you just don't explain your positions all that well?

Can you provide any examples where the scientific (theoretical) and religious (doctrinal) approaches share the same inquiry, and the same context for their inquiries? For example, where might the two come together on a common point on inquiries into the "origin of man" -- which seems to be a quaint, outdated term anyway?

[Amulek]

On 11/10/2021 at 11:06 PM, mfbukowski said:

I have some great conversations with God, and postmodernism, Pragmatism and phenomenology (also see William James and Kierkegaard) are THE channels to justify religious experience philosophically 

If I'm ever made an apostle my first order of business would be to try and canonize Works of Love.  

Much of what Kierkegaard wrote should really be required reading. Maybe I could get it added to the missionary library. We need more Knights of Faith!

[Canadiandude]

On 11/11/2021 at 3:42 PM, CV75 said:

I should probably back up and ask, when you say that religions (and by extension, sciences) are a part of the natural universe and make claims as to what exists/does not exist in said universe, you mean it was people who placed both religion and science into the natural universe in the first place as tools to deal with the world around them, right?

Yes, if I’m understanding you correctly.

Many faith traditions make existence claims, based upon subjective, spiritual processes.

The arguments of these faith traditions also don’t usually claim  these spiritual actors and phenomena to be merely social constructs, which are co-constitutional and intersubjective.

I don’t know that anyone can prove or disprove the existence of god per se, but we can examine the supporting evidence behind many of the more falsifiable claims made by specific faith traditions.

This is partly because the premise of falsifying the ‘existence of deity’ in more general terms is problematic, as you would first need to define what it is your looking for, justify that definition, and develop a valid and reliable methodology used to determine the existence of such, which also require justification.

A much easier process is to test the various truth claims of specific religions that were supposedly revealed on account of spirituality and religious organizations.

~

Processes for determining validity and reliability are important. We can say for example that the Latter-Day Saints claim that smoking is harmful is currently supported by an abundance of research that are sufficiently both reliable and valid.

Yet it would be a stretch to call this evidence of god per se, or as even as evidence claims of a revelation from a god.

We have to do our best to rule out other possible explanations, figure out the variables, potential relationship, and (hopefully) perhaps even causality.

~
I consider myself Atheist-Agnostic now.

I’ve yet to find any result or process that can suggest as evidentiary anyone’s particular teapot.

Without such evidence, I’m confident in my position that it’s unlikely that there is a god

~

True, the sciences are fallible and our knowledge incomplete (why would it be otherwise?) yet I find greater validity and reliability in claims made through scientific processes than the claims made by religion, and the methods they prescribe for determining the likely existence of something, and discovering how it works.

There’s been talk of paradigms and I’m aware of the claims by ‘thick’ constructivists as to the evolution of scientific understanding and methodology.

Yet it was not sufficiently demonstrated here how religious/spiritual existence claims have advanced, in equal rigour in their processes, so as to determine the validity & reliability of their claims, relative to those within the sciences.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Canadiandude
Edited for clarity

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Yes, if I’m understanding you correctly.

Many faith traditions make existence claims, based upon subjective, spiritual processes.

The arguments of these faith traditions also don’t usually claim  these spiritual actors and phenomena to be merely social constructs, which are co-constitutional and intersubjective.

I don’t know that anyone can prove or disprove the existence of god per se, but we can examine the supporting evidence behind many of the more falsifiable claims made by specific faith traditions.

This is partly because the premise of falsifying the ‘existence of deity’ in more general terms is problematic, as you would first need to define what it is your looking for, justify that definition, and develop a valid and reliable methodology used to determine the existence of such, which also require justification.

A much easier process is to test the various truth claims of specific religions that were supposedly revealed on account of spirituality and religious organizations.

~

Processes for determining validity and reliability are important. We can say for example that the Latter-Day Saints claim that smoking is harmful is currently supported by an abundance of research that are sufficiently both reliable and valid.

Yet it would be a stretch to call this evidence of god per se, or as even as evidence claims of a revelation from a god.

We have to do our best to rule out other possible explanations, figure out the variables, potential relationship, and (hopefully) perhaps even causality.

~
I consider myself Atheist-Agnostic now.

I’ve yet to find any result or process that can suggest as evidentiary anyone’s particular teapot.

Without such evidence, I’m confident in my position that it’s unlikely that there is a god

~

True, the sciences are fallible and our knowledge incomplete (why would it be otherwise?) yet I find greater validity and reliability in claims made through scientific processes than the claims made by religion, and the methods they prescribe for determining the likely existence of something, and discovering how it works.

There’s been talk of paradigms and I’m aware of the claims by ‘thick’ constructivists as to the evolution of scientific understanding and methodology.

Yet it was not sufficiently demonstrated here how religious/spiritual existence claims have advanced, in equal rigour in their processes, so as to determine the validity & reliability of their claims, relative to those within the sciences.

Thank you. At this point, can you provide some examples where the scientific (theoretical) and religious (doctrinal) approaches share the same inquiry, and the same context for their inquiries?

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

At this point, can you provide some examples where the scientific (theoretical) and religious (doctrinal) approaches share the same inquiry, and the same context for their inquiries?

I’m not sure I understand.

Both try to advance knowledge about existence that can have important consequences in the world.

Both seek to explain phenomena, justify phenomena, and are even used to advance policy and advise behaviour.

Religions do not merely claim the existence out there of phenomenon such reincarnation or god, but the requirements of god, post-mortal advancement, and so on.

Personal and social policies require justification. When that justification is that ‘god revealed to prophet y that doing or being x is good/bad and you’re going to be punished/rewarded for doing/being x  ’, well that’s a claim about existence.

Often an explanation of ‘Why’ is also included as well.

~

I remember vividly as a child in a Canadian congregation, the church’s stance and advocacy against gay marriage read by the Bishop over the pulpit.

Harper’s conservatives at the time were against legislating gay marriage yet the Supreme Court was adamant that no, such was indeed a right that could be expected of anyone in this country.

Harper and much of the party at the time we’re pretty clear on the belief that regardless of what the courts said on the matter, legislating gay marriage was against their religious views- in which god revealed to prophets x that homosexuality was a sin (to put it lightly) within their holy scriptures which is taken to be god’s revealed word.

Much institutional back and forth between the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Executive and opposition in parliament ensued.

But at least the conservatives’ actions pleased god amirite?

~
 

Church leaders have made some bold statements in the past regarding homosexuality, just as they have made bold statements concerning the proper in-group/out-group status of many other people and manner of living. 

These arguments are often contingent upon supposedly material things that occurred, are occurring, or will eventually occur. 

‘A material Cain slew his brother and his descendants are x, y, z, peoples, of whom the god wishes to forbid from his saving ordinances currently.’

’What kind of loving father in heaven would give his children innate sexual attraction to the same sex?’

Entire covenants that are gender specific (or at least were) on account of events in a garden between a first man and a first women because they transgressed a existent god’s commands.

~

I could go on. 

~
 

Existence claims have great consequence, and so it’s important to understand the methodology by which they arrive.

If there’s a God legitimating your argument as to what’s best for society, I of course then care by how you came by such knowledge.

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I’m not sure I understand.

Both try to advance knowledge about existence that can have important consequences in the world.

Both seek to explain phenomena, justify phenomena, and are even used to advance policy and advise behaviour.

Religions do not merely claim the existence out there of phenomenon such reincarnation or god, but the requirements of god, post-mortal advancement, and so on.

Personal and social policies require justification. When that justification is that ‘god revealed to prophet y that doing or being x is good/bad and you’re going to be punished/rewarded for doing/being x  ’, well that’s a claim about existence.

Often an explanation of ‘Why’ is also included as well.

~

I remember vividly as a child in a Canadian congregation, the church’s stance and advocacy against gay marriage read by the Bishop over the pulpit.

Harper’s conservatives at the time were against legislating gay marriage yet the Supreme Court was adamant that no, such was indeed a right that could be expected of anyone in this country.

Harper and much of the party at the time we’re pretty clear on the belief that regardless of what the courts said on the matter, legislating gay marriage was against their religious views- in which god revealed to prophets x that homosexuality was a sin (to put it lightly) within their holy scriptures which is taken to be god’s revealed word.

Much institutional back and forth between the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Executive and opposition in parliament ensued.

But at least the conservatives’ actions pleased god amirite?

~
 

Church leaders have made some bold statements in the past regarding homosexuality, just as they have made bold statements concerning the proper in-group/out-group status of many other people and manner of living. 

These arguments are often contingent upon supposedly material things that occurred, are occurring, or will eventually occur. 

‘A material Cain slew his brother and his descendants are x, y, z, peoples, of whom the god wishes to forbid from his saving ordinances currently.’

’What kind of loving father in heaven would give his children innate sexual attraction to the same sex?’

Entire covenants that are gender specific (or at least were) on account of events in a garden between a first man and a first women because they transgressed a existent god’s commands.

~

I could go on. 

~
 

Existence claims have great consequence, and so it’s important to understand the methodology by which they arrive.

If there’s a God legitimating your argument as to what’s best for society, I of course then care by how you came by such knowledge.

 

If you don't understand my question, I recommend you ask for clarification by isolating the smaller segments or word meanings causing problems, and asking me about them.

For example, I am asking for examples where a scientific and a religious approach share the same inquiry (an act of investigation or asking for information) and context (the inquiry is for the same question).

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

For example, I am asking for examples where a scientific and a religious approach share the same inquiry (an act of investigation or asking for information) and context (the inquiry is for the same question).

Okay, I’ll bite.

What do you mean by: “an act of investigation or asking for information, and context (the inquiry is for the same question)?

Does it matter and if so, why?

How is validity and reliability to be ascertained?

~

Religions and religious arguments do not merely concern themselves with values or ultimate meanings, nor is it clear that science necessarily has nothing to add to these subjects either.

~
 

In your reply, you quoted from my previous post, yet was a lot more to said post than my not understanding your question.

What think ye of the rest of that post?

~

Religious arguments do not merely state ‘how to get to heaven’-

(and even if they did that’s still an existence claim)

-but frequently also ‘how the heavens go’ as I explained in my previous post.

Is this true? Or false?

~

Religious arguments furthermore have material consequences for personal and public policy.

Is this true? Or false?

~

I don’t see why Religious arguments should not be expected to provide evidence for the existence of spiritual  things (such as gods, reincarnation, etc) if their said existence is essential to their argument in support/dispute of particular values, and practices.

If spiritual phenomena cannot be evidenced through any sufficiently reliable and valid methodology, then why shouldn’t a spiritual believer be expected to justify their values and practices through the same kinds of argumentation expected of nones in support of their own practices and moral arguments?

If Homosexuality is wrong, explain why, without reference to an existence claim for god and what-not.

If gay marriage should not be be institutionalized, this too should be explained.

~

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the view of the non-overlapping magisteria, but luckily here are people out there whom are much better at explaining it’s weaknesses than I.

If anyone is curious at looking at its criticisms further, check out the ‘reception’ subheading on this page for more leads into why some people such as myself are less than convinced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Canadiandude

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If you don't understand my question, I recommend you ask for clarification by isolating the smaller segments or word meanings causing problems, and asking me about them.

For example, I am asking for examples where a scientific and a religious approach share the same inquiry (an act of investigation or asking for information) and context (the inquiry is for the same question).

Precisely relevant, considering the above post 

Edited November 13, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Canadiandude]

Here’s another good site for anyone wanting an introduction to the matter.

Has a good primer on the pros and cons.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria#Criticisms_of_Gould.27s_NOMA

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Okay, I’ll bite.

What do you mean by: “an act of investigation or asking for information, and context (the inquiry is for the same question)?

Does it matter and if so, why?

How is validity and reliability to be ascertained?

~

Religions and religious arguments do not merely concern themselves with values or ultimate meanings, nor is it clear that science necessarily has nothing to add to these subjects either.

~
 

In your reply, you quoted from my previous post, yet was a lot more to said post than my not understanding your question.

What think ye of the rest of that post?

~

Religious arguments do not merely state ‘how to get to heaven’-

(and even if they did that’s still an existence claim)

-but frequently also ‘how the heavens go’ as I explained in my previous post.

Is this true? Or false?

~

Religious arguments furthermore have material consequences for personal and public policy.

Is this true? Or false?

~

I don’t see why Religious arguments should not be expected to provide evidence for the existence of spiritual  things (such as gods, reincarnation, etc) if their said existence is essential to their argument in support/dispute of particular values, and practices.

If spiritual phenomena cannot be evidenced through any sufficiently reliable and valid methodology, then why shouldn’t a spiritual believer be expected to justify their values and practices through the same kinds of argumentation expected of nones in support of their own practices and moral arguments?

If Homosexuality is wrong, explain why, without reference to an existence claim for god and what-not.

If gay marriage should not be be institutionalized, this too should be explained.

~

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the view of the non-overlapping magisteria, but luckily here are people out there whom are much better at explaining it’s weaknesses than I.

If anyone is curious at looking at its criticisms further, check out the ‘reception’ subheading on this page for more leads into why some people such as myself are less than convinced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

 

I mean inquiry, which is an act of investigation or an act of asking a question. It matters because I am asking for examples where a scientific and a religious approach share the same inquiry, and for the same question. If you can’t provide any examples, I am fine with that.

The rest of your post about religion doesn’t address my question that you aren’t sure you understand. As to your questions about your two propositions about religion, Is this true? Or false? My reply is, It depends. For this reason, I think before you keep asking questions as if science and religion share the same inquiries for the same questions. you should establish that they do.

[Canadiandude]

I wish to re-emphasis that my conversation is with those who choose to read and respond to my posts in good faith without ignoring me-

-and those who, through their content, have remained sufficiently respectful as to not warrant an ‘ignore’ in return.

Once these conditions have been met, I’ll gladly respond and converse in turn.

[Canadiandude]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I mean inquiry, which is an act of investigation or an act of asking a question. It matters because I am asking for examples where a scientific and a religious approach share the same inquiry, and for the same question. If you can’t provide any examples, I am fine with that.

The rest of your post about religion doesn’t address my question that you aren’t sure you understand. As to your questions about your two propositions about religion, Is this true? Or false? My reply is, It depends. For this reason, I think before you keep asking questions as if science and religion share the same inquiries for the same questions. you should establish that they do.

Very well:

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It matters because I am asking for examples where a scientific and a religious approach share the same inquiry, and for the same question.

You are repeating the question, not explaining why it matters.

 

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As to your questions about your two propositions about religion, Is this true? Or false? My reply is, It depends.

 

What does it depend upon? 

Furthermore if it depends, then you are acknowledging that sometimes there is indeed overlap between the majesteria.

 

[Canadiandude]

53 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Here’s another good site for anyone wanting an introduction to the matter.

Has a good primer on the pros and cons.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria#Criticisms_of_Gould.27s_NOMA

I repost this comment only so as to re-emphasizes that these are some of the criticisms that the Non-overlapping Magisteria has to take into account and respond to.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Canadiandude]

I have already provided examples where Religious traditions have made material claims, or value-based claims that are at least partially dependent upon material claims.

If Genesis is purely an allegory, for example, and we are all descended at some point from black women and men who descended from the homininae family, what justification is there for the ordinance ban?
 

Covenant dimorphism based upon gender?

Because books of scripture are contended to be the literal word of god as revealed through prophets, religions have resisted questioning or updating religious values based upon these beliefs, including those that refer to my own sexuality as some sort of abomination, that needs a cure, censure, punishment.

So no, I reject that they have two separate lines of inquiry that do not merge or converge.

Edit: and just so we are clear:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been very material in many of its claims, with a book of scripture based upon gold plates of reformed Egyptian, detailing the migration of Jewish migrants as one example.

The church’s claims on this and other matters have moderated over the years, perhaps partly in light of old declarative statements being in contradiction with what we’ve been able to discover about the ancient americas (and old world) so far. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Very well:

You are repeating the question, not explaining why it matters.

What does it depend upon? 

Furthermore if it depends, then you are acknowledging that sometimes there is indeed overlap between the majesteria.

My repetition of the question in an alternate way and with explanations (at your request) is to facilitate your understanding of my question. Your understanding of my question matters because that is a key component of dialog. You expressed a lack of understanding and touched on other topics instead, not a key component of dialog, another reason. If you understand my question and it doesn’t matter to you, I am fine with that.

Is there overlap, rather, a sharing of inquiry and context between at least some scientific and religious approaches, sometimes? If so, please provide an example. Thank you!

ETA: I just noticed that you believe they do merge. What is the common approach of investigation or asking the question for a given topic?

Edited November 13, 2021 by CV75

[Canadiandude]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You expressed a lack of understanding and touched on other topics instead, not a key component of dialog, another reason. If you understand my question and it doesn’t matter to you, I am fine with that.

Is there overlap, rather, a sharing of inquiry and context between at least some scientific and religious approaches? If so, please provide an example.

I have already have answered the question, yet you have ignored my question as to why your question is relevant.

Multiple times.

~

This my answer, I would like it treated as such:

Both science and religion make material claims about existence, as well as contribute to subjective and intersubjective understandings of the world.

~
 

The ‘other topics’ are actually not otherly at all, and are key to the argument.

Some of them have even been examples to back up my argument.

You are deliberately ignoring them and treating them as illegitimate yet you do not explain why. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

As to your questions about your two propositions about religion, Is this true? Or false? My reply is, It depends. For this reason, I think before you keep asking questions as if science and religion share the same inquiries for the same questions. you should establish that they do.

It depends on what?

If it depends, then you are admitting that the the non-overlapping magisteria view to be incorrect.

~
 

I’m beginning to believe that you are indeed arguing in bad faith.

I have already explained and gave examples of Religious arguments making material claims, as well as subjective claims like values that are at least partially premised upon physical claims (like god revealing x to y)