LDS

[RandFan]

But that's not what you said. Others participating in the discussion made clear the definition of faith that they were using. You had ample opportunity to clarify what you meant by "faith".

An equivocation and, I believe, an amphibology.

 

[Lucian]

I would argue that the highlighted is exactly what Mormon theology does with regard to archaeology, history, and biology.

(Side note: Who the hell is Claudio Bonito?)

He seems to be a Shroud of Turin enthusiast: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/bonito.pdf

 

[Foster Zygote]

You asked a question that, unfortunately, was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

How is it irrelevant? You brought it up. Are you embarrassed to say that you believe in Adam & Eve, or have you realized that one of your "spiritual insights" requires belief in a myth?

 

[RandFan]

Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either disicipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves. . . . We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be. --Claudio Bonito, "The Importance of Faith in Science"

Einstein said something similar.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

I don't know who Claudio Bonito is but you did not provide context for this quote. Einstein was not talking about a belief in the supernatural but even if he were, and even if Bonito was talking about the supernatural, the quote would simply be an opinion and an appeal to authority.

 

[Empress]

Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either disicipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves. . . . We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be. --Claudio Bonito, "The Importance of Faith in Science"

That was Pope John Paul II, just for your information.

ETA: Here's the full section of the letter, for context:

Both the Church and the scientific community are faced with such inescapable alternatives. We shall make our choices much better of we live in a collaborative interaction in which we are called continually to be more. Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either discipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves. No one can read the history of the past century and not realize that crisis is upon us both. The uses of science have on more than one occasion proved massively destructive, and the reflections on religion have too often been sterile. We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.

 

[kellyb]

Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either disicipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves. . . . We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be. --Claudio Bonito, "The Importance of Faith in Science"

1) a word salad quote from an unknown source isn't really an argument
2) do you even agree with the quote?
3) can you rephrase it, if so?
4)
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1....2.0....0...1c.1j2.26.serp..2.0.0.L4k1lL2O4uo

 

[RandFan]

2) Scharffs: "Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary to compensate for their mistake. . . . The BoM clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement." Scharffs then quotes Lehi who explains that if the Fall had not occurred, "all things must have remained in the same state" forever. Adam and Eve would not have had children. Moreover, "there would be no joy because there would be no sorrow, no righteousness because there would be no evil" (Scharffs).

I want to remark on this because I think that the Christian view of Genesis is an unfortunate interpretation of a truly insightful allegory.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It was apparent to the author of Genesis that humans were unique from other animals. At the time it was believed that humans were the only moral animal. We now know that to be false. However, we have by far, the most robust understanding of reality. It is this understanding that has made humans a moral agent, we know right from wrong, this also gave us another unique understanding (as far as we know), we know and can appreciate our own mortality. We know that are going to die.

I think the allegory is beautiful and amazing as seen in that light.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Agreed but it would be easier to simply not come to this forum and respond. It's all about the ego. I include myself in that BTW. We mostly argue to convince ourselves and in the process we slowly (very slowly) drive progress forward by changing each others minds incrementally. However, if a person wants to increase the likelihood of convincing skeptics that person will need to be as straightforward and transparent as possible. Obfuscation is not compelling and is a red flag to anyone who understands the difference between logic and sophistry, reason and fallacy.

Great post and a very honest one at that.

SKYRIDER44 PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE HILITED SECTION OF THIS POST. I also have this exact perception of you.

 

[kellyb]

I remember being a Christian, and from what I remember, what I now consider sophistry and "mental gymnastics" seemed at the time to be the logic of faith. Which I guess makes sense, since in retrospect, the "answers" I got from church elders to pressing questions was also sophistry, and rejecting it as such was painted as some sort of sin.

 

[halleyscomet]

I want to remark on this because I think that the Christian view of Genesis is an unfortunate interpretation of a truly insightful allegory.

It was apparent to the author of Genesis that humans were unique from other animals. At the time it was believed that humans were the only moral animal. We now know that to be false. However, we have by far, the most robust understanding of reality. It is this understanding that has made humans a moral agent, we know right from wrong, this also gave us another unique understanding (as far as we know), we know and can appreciate our own mortality. We know that are going to die.

I think the allegory is beautiful and amazing as seen in that light.

In which case you might not want to know that the word translated as "rib" refers to a generic shaft, and the story of Eve's creation is probably a myth to explain why human men lack a baculum and why men have a "seam" that looks a lot like a scar in that general region.

The belief that men once had a baculum and we lost it when women were created puts an interesting twist on Old Testament misogyny, doesn't it?

 

[Olowkow]

Fixed the YouTube link.

Lawrence Krauss details it beautifully in the following lecture. It begins at 15:30

 

[abaddon]

Come to the dark side. You know in your feelings that it is true.

Levity aside, I agree with the general thrust that you are questioning your faith. And that ain't an easy thing to do. I think you are, and I would applaud that. But if you turn out to be simply sliding religion under the door, I will be sorely disappointed.

 

[RandFan]

Fixed the YouTube link.

That's twice. Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

In which case you might not want to know that the word translated as "rib" refers to a generic shaft, and the story of Eve's creation is probably a myth to explain why human men lack a baculum and why men have a "seam" that looks a lot like a scar in that general region.

The belief that men once had a baculum and we lost it when women were created puts an interesting twist on Old Testament misogyny, doesn't it?

yes it does and I did not know about the baculum. Thank you.

I remember in high school a teacher pointing out that the vast majority of men and women have the same number of ribs. Some of the students were offended by that.

 

[Olowkow]

That's twice. Thank you.

Krauss is up there with Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan in my opinion.

My honest question to the LDS members is "What do you think when you hear someone like this speaking about scientific matters?" I am curious to know if believers are apt to view these people as evil or liars or just what do they think? Or are they not permitted to view such material?

My impression of the fundamentalists that I know is that they have been told from an early age:

1) that scientists are often atheists
2) that atheists are evil
3) that science is therefore often evil

Am I wrong?

 

[kellyb]

I think Krauss is overstating the case there a bit, or at least inappropriately extrapolating developments from physics into "science" as a whole. Some types of science, like medical science and psychology, sometimes can just (more or less) get things wrong.

 

[RandFan]

I think Krauss is overstating the case there a bit, or at least inappropriately extrapolating developments from physics into "science" as a whole. Some types of science, like medical science and psychology, sometimes can just (more or less) get things wrong.

He's made that point before. You are correct, the belief that particles other than photos could not escape the gravitational pull of the sun, the resistance to the red shift theory, the reisistence to the theory that H pylori causes ulcers, hell, there are thousands of examples. The point that he is making is that science isn't a shifting sand dune. While consensus can vacillate a bit from time to time (see the debate over nature vs nurture vs nature and nurture) or just plain get things wrong, but over the long term the trend is to correct mistakes and move on. Facts may be provisional and the interpretations of what those facts may mean may change but facts and scientific are not wishy washy things.

 

[kellyb]

He's made that point before. You are correct, the belief that particles other than photos could not escape the gravitational pull of the sun, the resistance to the red shift theory, the reisistence to the theory that H pylori causes ulcers, hell, there are thousands of examples. The point that he is making is that science isn't a shifting sand dune. While consensus can vacillate a bit from time to time (see the debate over nature vs nurture vs nature and nurture) or just plain get things wrong, but over the long term the trend is to correct mistakes and move on. Facts may be provisional and the interpretations of what those facts may mean may change but facts and scientific are not wishy washy things.

Yeah. Not to go too far off topic, but..

Even when "science" (or rather, the scientific consensus) gets things wrong, the evidence itself (in and of itself) is usually solid enough even in retrospect; a lot of times people were just asking the wrong questions, or the right questions in the wrong way and inadvertently answering a completely different question.

 

[joobz]

Krauss is up there with Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan in my opinion.

My honest question to the LDS members is "What do you think when you hear someone like this speaking about scientific matters?" I am curious to know if believers are apt to view these people as evil or liars or just what do they think? Or are they not permitted to view such material?

My impression of the fundamentalists that I know is that they have been told from an early age:

1) that scientists are often atheists
2) that atheists are evil
3) that science is therefore often evil

Am I wrong?

I remember being told as a child by a variety of fundamentalists that most scientists become christian because they realize that so much can't be explained without god.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't know that; you're conjecturing. LDS believe that their living prophet receives revelations from God; hence, that is how what you prejudicially call "superstitions" came about.

Here is what you pretend to which to be responding:

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle
Exactly. . . . all of the various forms of xianist superstitons are equally a-historical, equally unreasonable, equally based on myth and wishful thinking.

Here is what I actually said:

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle
Exactly. Thank you for the admission that these LDS tenets are not in the xianist bible.

...with a comment of yours, to which my post was a response, interposed:

Originally Posted by skyrider44
Consequently, by your reasoning, Jesus's failure to specify those requirements (and others) means that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians.

...then my response continues:

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle
Not by my reasoning. IMO, all of the various forms of xianist superstitions are equally a-historical, equally unreasonable, equally based on myth and wishful thinking. The discussion came about because of what other xianists think of the xianist credentials of LDS.

The dishonesty of your unacknowledged ellipsis is breathtaking.

Do notice that what I actually said (as opposed to the pastiche you made of it) clearly shows that I am expressing an opinion.

Your pernicious superstitions may comfort you; they may even seem to you to supplant actual reality. They do not give you privilege to distort my words into something you feel more comfortable dismissing.

I restate:

In my opinion, ALL forms of xianist superstitions--orthodox, heterodox, and heretical--are as a-historical, unreasonable, contra-factual, myth-based, and wishful as the idea that Spider Woman gave First Girl the gift of weaving, and instrructed her to make kinaala cakes "a shovel handle wide" (when the Diné had not invented shovels) and "studded with raisins" (when the Diné had not been exposed to grapes).

If you ever quote me again, at least bother to do so honestly. Mendacity, particularly transparent mendacity, does your cause no honor.

Having constructed a false premise (above), you proceed to build on it. I am less than impressed.

The "false premise" was your construction. You are absolutely right--the false premise you constructed is not impressive--but it is not my false premise.

"The only source"? And that source is "contentious texts"? Your view of LDS historicity is, to be charitable, distorted.

What text from the xianist bible demonstrates the authority of Jesus who was said to be said the be "the christ" used to institute, mandate, or commission "baptism of the dead"?

What text from the xianist bible demonstrates the authority of Jesus who was said to be said the be "the christ" used to institute, mandate, or commission the existence of the family unit into eternity?

What text from the xianist bible demonstrates the authority of Jesus who was said to be said the be "the christ" used to institute, mandate, or commission the soteris importance of special garments?

What text anywhere demonstrates that the "translation" of the BoA wrought by Smith bears the slightest passing semblance of historical or scholastic accuracy? What actual egyptologist, historian,lexicologist, archaeologist, or anthropologist has used Smith's "translation" of the Book of Breathing to advance, by one character, the actual understanding of hieroglyphics; or the translation of even one image in any other text?

I have qualified my statements by emphasizing that future discoveries by scientists could render your charges spurious. You appear to think that science is a static discipline.

And I have repeatedly responded that, if and when actual. practical, empirical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, of the existence of the anachronisms claimed in the BoM to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas is produced, I will examine it with fascination. In the meantime, there is not only no evidence that (for instance) horses were a part of any pre-Colombian culture; there is much evidence that they were not. You really, really, ought to read 1491, for a start.

Your claim that I think that science is a static discipline speaks more to your level of comprehension than to any statement I have made.