Science vs. faith

[RandFan]

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

None of those folks claimed to be speaking to god.

 

[Pup]

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: ...

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

I think you're missing a basic understanding of the difference between the scientific method and religious revelation. Science by definition is self-correcting. It's not shameful or embarrassing for people to admit that--it's the heart of what makes it work so well. There is no scientific equivalent to religious prophecies or revelations. Only religious people are claiming to have eternal truth through revelation.

If you want to discuss Brigham Young from a cultural and social perspective, sure, I figure lots of folks here would be glad to do that, including me.

I've posted a few links in this thread to non-Mormon contemporaries who made similar claims as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young about race, health, the American Indians, etc. The more one looks at their contemporaries, the less JS and BY sound as if they had special insight from a god.

So it means applying Occam's razor, which would indicate that the simplest explanation for Brigham Young's leadership is that, like most leaders who emerge, he had a dominating personality and was at the right time and place to grab power, rather than that there's a creator of the universe with extraordinary powers who chose him alone to lead a small group in the American west.

 

[John Jones]

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

None of those persons claimed to be a prophet of the discipline of science. None of them claimed to have god's ear either.

 

[skyrider44]

None of those persons claimed to be a prophet of the discipline of science. None of them claimed to have god's ear either.

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

 

[Pup]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

I think the bolded part is missing a citation. It's not just your personal opinion, since you stated it as fact.

 

[John Jones]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

You mean in your opinion, science was their God.

I guess we'll add the discipline of science to the list of things you don't understand.

Science doesn't have an altar, theology, or dogma. There is no priest hood and no prophets. No miracles are claimed and no promises of an afterlife are made. Science doesn't depend on the supernatural or blind faith.

I don't want different standards for scientists and theists, but I recognize that they exist.

I think it would be pretty good for the world if religion had to depend on empirical, reproducible evidence, falsifiability, and the peer review process.

Something tells me that you would complain about that too.


Have a glass of wine or something. You seem needlessly peevish.

 

[RandFan]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

I want the same for both. Evidence. Where is your evidence? Humans are fallible. We don't claim that science is inerrant. We claim that truth is empirical not revealed. Big difference.

 

[Pixel42]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable.

The sad thing is you probably really do believe that.

You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

We expect people who are stating what has been revealed to them by God to make fewer silly factual errors than people who aren't. Well actually we don't expect that, because we think they're either lying or deluded, but we would if we believed them.

 

[dafydd]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. .

No altars in science. Altars are for theists who believe without needing proof. Einstein did not develop the theory of relativity by getting down on his knees and talking to an imaginary being.

 

[tsig]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

Worshiping at the altar of god is a bad thing?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable.

Oh please, you sound like a young-Earth creationist. Science is a methodology for testing ideas about the workings of nature. One of its most fundamental ideas is that no idea is above doubt. Major theories have been discarded or modified in the face of new evidence all through the history of scientific inquiry.

You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

When one person says, "I think this may be how this observed natural phenomenon works based on these tests. I could be wrong though, so let's publish my work and get a bunch of other researchers to go through my methodology looking for faults, and run the tests themselves to see if they get the same results", and another person says, "God spoke to me personally and said that a '67 Dodge Dart is in orbit around a star in the Andromeda galaxy. This demonstrates his great power so you must worship him. Prove me wrong", then I am going to hold both claims to the same standard of evidence.

 

[PHLeal]

Here is the thing Foster Zygote... like most apologetics, skyrider seems to think science works like religion - by revelation, not through testing and evidence - and as such thinks any new information or changes in any theory proves science is a "false god". I've worked with a person who thought EXACTLY like that. He was a young earth creationist, biblical literalist, and firmly believed scientists were satan's handymen. Skyrider seems to think almost the same way, IMHO.

Another guy who studied with me once asked for "a single scientist that hadn't sold his soul to the devil"...it's sad and ennervating...

 

[John Jones]

Here is the thing Foster Zygote... like most apologetics, skyrider seems to think science works like religion - by revelation, not through testing and evidence - and as such thinks any new information or changes in any theory proves science is a "false god". I've worked with a person who thought EXACTLY like that. He was a young earth creationist, biblical literalist, and firmly believed scientists were satan's handymen. Skyrider seems to think almost the same way, IMHO.

Another guy who studied with me once asked for "a single scientist that hadn't sold his soul to the devil"...it's sad and ennervating...

The ones I've dealt with and remember most were the xians who simultaneously criticize science for being both dogmatic and fickle. They didn't have a clue about the discipline of science.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Back to the subject of this thread: Skyrider44, can you support your assertion that the formulation of scientific hypotheses requires faith? If not, will you admit that your claim was erroneous?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here is the thing Foster Zygote... like most apologetics, skyrider seems to think science works like religion - by revelation, not through testing and evidence - and as such thinks any new information or changes in any theory proves science is a "false god". I've worked with a person who thought EXACTLY like that. He was a young earth creationist, biblical literalist, and firmly believed scientists were satan's handymen. Skyrider seems to think almost the same way, IMHO.

Another guy who studied with me once asked for "a single scientist that hadn't sold his soul to the devil"...it's sad and ennervating...

I had a very good biology professor who related a story about his daughter's 3rd grade field trip to a dinosaur dig while they were living in Montana. He said that a couple of her classmates we denied permission to make the excursion because their parents were certain that fossils were all fakes planted by evil paleontologists at the behest of Satan. I **** you not.

 

[joobz]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

I want the same standard for both.
It would be a great boon to the world if people would be willing to, in the face of evidence, completely abandon a hypothesis and form a new one.
I see that happen on a daily basis in science.
Imagine what religion would look like if that was also common practice.

 

[Mashuna]

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

Wow, you've managed a statement that's both laughably false and remarkably lacking in self-awareness. Well done!

 

[skyrider44]

Who here is claiming that scientists are infallible?

You ask a question based on a supposition not of my making.

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

 

[RandFan]

You ask a question based on a supposition not of my making.

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

• What good is a prophet if god doesn't correct the prophet when he misrepresents god?
• What is the difference between a church with a prophet and a church without a prophet if we cannot trust that the prophet will tell us the truth (see Adam god doctrine, blood doctrine, and ugly racist remarks)?
• What good is a prophet if god tells the prophet not to drink hot drinks for the good of his followers but neglects to tell the prophet about germs?

 

[kerikiwi]

Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail.

Who makes the call?