tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post6838216749310014135..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Maybe Science is More Like Religion Than You RealizedJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23621429630512683492011-05-26T17:54:06.579-05:002011-05-26T17:54:06.579-05:00Jeff's post seems to be suggesting that since ...Jeff's post seems to be suggesting that since we don't give up on science when scientific authorities are shown to be wrong, we shouldn't give up on religion when religious authorities are shown to be wrong. This argument doesn't work on me because of some very important differences between science and religion. The success of science is attributable to the fact that it does not depend on faith in authority. Yes, in science, nonspecialists defer to specialists, a deference to authority, but specialists have to prove their case to other specialists by making their evidence available for public scrutiny. The ultimate source of truth in science is evidence that can be examined by anyone who becomes educated enough to deal with it. The ultimate source of truth in religion is revelation, and revelation must come through the proper authority. So discovering flaws in authoritative pronouncements poses more of a problem for religion than it does for science. <br /><br />Some Mormons will respond to this argument by pointing out that anyone can know religious truth for himself through personal revelation, which they equate with public scrutiny of evidence, but this doesn't diminish their reliance on authority. In organized religion, personal revelation is only taken seriously by the body of believers when it agrees with authoritative revelation. When it disagrees, it doesn't count. <br /><br />On a sidenote, Jeff's juxtaposition of the first law of thermodynamics and the atonement is interesting; both have to do with balance sheets. But I can't accept the idea of the atonement as it's currently understood by most Mormons because I can't believe that justice is served by punishing the guilty for the sins of the innocent.James 5:15https://www.blogger.com/profile/07418671566591597672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24486910369626126122011-04-29T10:18:58.674-05:002011-04-29T10:18:58.674-05:00Also, with regards to religion it's typically ...Also, with regards to religion it's typically the religious that state that god works in mysterious ways, and that he evades the physical realm whenever questions arise. Yet you see the unbeliever as being the one for which "no proof can be sufficient." <br /><br />I think generally people are more then willing to accept an idea if they have regular interaction with it and can see clearly that an idea has both real world application and no better more fitting explanation. Skeptics are not people that are seeing the same things as you and refusing to accept them as they are, but are people that are not seeing it the way you see it, and have not been given any reasonable, consistent evidence to show that your POV on the subject is any better then the next person's religion is.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58194543609615761692011-04-29T10:12:08.745-05:002011-04-29T10:12:08.745-05:00@muralmama,
This is precisely why some people ar...@muralmama,<br /> This is precisely why some people are so skeptical of concepts that rely on "belief" and remain unfalsifiable. <br /><br />This is why I don't put much stock in alien abduction stories, sightings of bigfoot, the Loch ness monster, Miracle cures, cold readings, southern faith healers, etc. <br /><br />While many of these stories are interesting to listen to and anyone of them COULD be true, their lack of verifiable evidence and falsifiability makes it impossible to say with any certainty and with all the contradictory yet very passionately believed ideas in the world it seems very unlikely that these folks really have experienced the things they believe they experienced.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52753558661157981062011-04-29T05:02:22.984-05:002011-04-29T05:02:22.984-05:00Sounds like someone who'd like to write off sk...Sounds like someone who'd like to write off skeptics rather than come to terms with what's really going on.Openmindednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34566217160512472922011-04-28T23:00:39.499-05:002011-04-28T23:00:39.499-05:00This whole line of discussion puts me in mind of a...This whole line of discussion puts me in mind of a Stuart Chase quote that sums up everything quite nicely: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”<br /><br />What more is there to say?MuralMamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933241765451600717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10172314502136295742011-04-24T13:02:35.022-05:002011-04-24T13:02:35.022-05:00to be fair (even though I tend to see this much ea...to be fair (even though I tend to see this much easier from Openminded's position), if Joseph was as he said he was then dying as a martyr would also fit. That piece of data though does not lend any final say on whether he was a prophet by itself. If a person would rather die then recant what they have claimed it merely means that the thing they have claimed is more important to them then life itself. We've had lots of people do this throughout the ages some for causes that seemed very legitimate (Malcolm X seemed relatively sure that he would be assassinated by the members of his former religious sect, Abraham Lincoln theoretically could have seen the possibility that his political movements could be deadly for him, many others) What it shows us is that Smith seemed to care very deeply about the religion he had created. We can speculate as to whether he was doing so because god had commanded him to or whether it was for other less sublime reasons.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56645492217937930072011-04-24T04:21:11.070-05:002011-04-24T04:21:11.070-05:00Pops,
Alongside what Mateo said, I'll respond ...Pops,<br />Alongside what Mateo said, I'll respond to your concern about where you think the analogy falls apart. I'll probably say the same thing as Mateo though. <br /><br />You appealed to how Smith died with a testimony of the BoM and etc: Why would he die for a lie?<br /><br />Hoffman would have rather died than be exposed. He wouldve died for a lie. <br /><br />This is a part of the nature of, for lack of a less offensive term, a con artist. Though I'm sure we'd both agree that Hoffman was a con artist, I'm sure you're much less willing for Smith to bear the same title. <br /><br />I'm just saying that dying for a lie is something that people will do. That Smith died rather than telling people it was false means absolutely nothing. <br /><br />In fact, it's almost supporting evidence.Openmindednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81504547575528075152011-04-23T23:46:18.445-05:002011-04-23T23:46:18.445-05:00I wanted to state really quickly that its highly p...I wanted to state really quickly that its highly possible that I've misunderstood what Jeff was going for with this post in the first place. If the point was to get across that, like science, religious believers need to come to terms with the fact that oftentimes they simply won't have the answers and that religion is a matter (like science) of doing the best you can with the bits you have, then I think that this statement seems more or less valid.<br /><br />I think perhaps most people reacted a bit to the way the opening paragraph was worded mainly because it seems to make a straw man that Science claims to know all of the answers with some sort of certainty and exactness, yet this is not at all the case. <br /><br />Perhaps Jeff was doing this purposely to expose how the initial glance at the field of science (when we were young) due to the way it's often portrayed in the media, or by a proponent of a particular theory, as being exact and perfectly known.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-648734009139406282011-04-22T01:06:31.094-05:002011-04-22T01:06:31.094-05:00That last comment came off rather harsh. It's...That last comment came off rather harsh. It's also possible that I'm simply not understanding what you're getting at here.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28861656104778013172011-04-22T01:05:33.754-05:002011-04-22T01:05:33.754-05:00"So, is cold fusion real or not? How are your..."So, is cold fusion real or not? How are your senses working there? How about the Big Bang, perhaps some string theory?" <br /><br />Pops... I'm at a loss of how to explain this stuff to you better. I don't know if you get it and are refusing to accept it or if you really are just not getting it here.<br /><br />Yes. There are theoretical parts of physics that are less then solid. They often have mathematics to back them up but sometimes not more then that. They are still based on empirical evidence and our interactions with things we can sense with our physical senses but some of them may be pretty difficult to prove. You'll also notice that there is less consensus in such areas and that they are seen as theoretical from the stand point of even the people in their field.<br /><br />It's still much different then claiming that a spiritual claim is on even par with them. <br /><br />Testable things that are in the LDS church would be things like, "Do I do better financially when paying tithing", "Does the word of wisdom help a person live a healthier life", "Do Mormons earn more money", "Do people that pray have an easier time dealing with stress" Those are all interesting questions. They are questions that ARE on par with scientific endeavors because they are verifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. The problem is that knowing the answer to any of those questions tells you absolutely nothing about whether there is a god or if he is guiding things. Since he is a being whose existence and influence defies any methods we have for observation it makes it rather difficult to put that sort of an outlook in the same boat as a scientific arena.<br /><br />Religion builds up, and places emphasis on, anecdotal and highly subjective experiences and plays them up as if they were empirical evidences. That simply is not something that flies for the scientific theory. Can you find scientists that have tried such things? Sure. Think of a sound theory, Gravitation, classical physics, thermodynamics, etc. you'll see fields that don't take anyone's word for it, and seeks to tear theories to pieces to find out if they actually work. They don't make claims that are untestable because such claims are irrelevant.<br /><br />If some one wants to prove that purple gummy bears (that can't be observed directly or dwell outside of our observable universe) are causing the laws of physics to perform they automatically kick themselves out of the discussion just do to their definition. <br /><br />Yes I will say it again, we don't know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics operate how we think they do, and there is plenty that we don't understand. Stating that our knowledge of such things is not perfect does not mean it's on a level playing field with your religious beliefs. It doesn't validate them anymore then it validates voodoo, or greek mythology.<br /><br />On top of that I have a hard time ignoring what seems to be hypocrisy in what you're stating here. You keep going on and on about how science doesn't have perfect certainty about anything yet you keep invoking the scientific method "make a hypothesis, test it, refine it" in your own spiritual outlook. You obviously see on some level that this method holds a lot of clout.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82818959291333685302011-04-22T00:26:47.232-05:002011-04-22T00:26:47.232-05:00"I don't follow how the mob was going to ..."I don't follow how the mob was going to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud. Perhaps you could enlighten us."<br /><br />Pops... seriously man, sometimes it feels like you're just purposely playing dumb. <br /><br />Earlier you stated: " to be murdered by an angry mob rather than recant what they had seen and knew to be true." To which this comment was in response saying basically that a person's willingness to die for what they say they are, does not mean that they are what they say they are.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15673820919984192972011-04-22T00:05:23.821-05:002011-04-22T00:05:23.821-05:00You probably don't realize how many people out...<i>You probably don't realize how many people out there would rather die than be "found out". Remember Mark Hoffman?</i><br /><br />I don't follow how the mob was going to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud. Perhaps you could enlighten us.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54438158138492097472011-04-22T00:01:05.694-05:002011-04-22T00:01:05.694-05:00It really seems to me that religion's survival...<i>It really seems to me that religion's survival as an idea has been thanks to the vagueness of it's tenets.</i><br /><br />Remarks like these make me wonder if you have any familiarity at all with science.<br /><br /><i>Religion is not backed up by the scientific method because at it's core the scientific method doesn't examine those things which are not empirically falsifiable.</i><br /><br />Same comment as above.<br /><br /><i>Basically for religion to be taken seriously by scientists it would need to submit testable, falsifiable results that can be clearly unearthed with a large number of observations.</i><br /><br />We're clearly talking about different things. What I'm saying is that for religion to be taken seriously by you - or by any person - they must personally examine evidence, postulate hypotheses, try experiments, and evaluate results.<br /><br />Everything in your head that you claim is knowledge is something that you accept on faith, whether it's f = ma or some idea about the existence or non-existence of God. I'm talking about personal knowledge and how it's gained, not about community knowledge. The <i>personal</i> process bears a striking resemblance to the the scientific method.<br /><br /><i>How is it coddling and spoiling us to allow us to understand him with the most reliable senses we have?</i><br /><br />So, is cold fusion real or not? How are your senses working there? How about the Big Bang, perhaps some string theory?<br /><br /><i>I just don't get how speaking in a voice that people can easily understand is a negative thing, or how that inhibits our ability to choose.</i><br /><br />That goes back to the purpose of life. If God sat down and had a personal chat with you at the breakfast table, would you still be free to decide whether he exists or not?<br /><br />God has taken your training wheels off and wants you to see if you can ride the bike.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34502291099467606342011-04-17T23:48:11.235-05:002011-04-17T23:48:11.235-05:00"Joseph and Hyrum were willing ("I go as..."Joseph and Hyrum were willing ("I go as a lamb to the slaughter") to be murdered by an angry mob rather than recant what they had seen and knew to be true."<br /><br />You probably don't realize how many people out there would rather die than be "found out". Remember <a href="http://runtu.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/drastic-measures-were-called-for/" rel="nofollow">Mark Hoffman</a>?Openmindednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47480981752390477712011-04-17T23:39:37.016-05:002011-04-17T23:39:37.016-05:00" If God were to inhibit our development by c..." If God were to inhibit our development by coddling and spoiling us,"<br /><br />How is it coddling and spoiling us to allow us to understand him with the most reliable senses we have? This is a perspective that has never made any sense to me. It's obvious to me that even for those that are deep believers and that keep harping on this "it's better to believe then see" business that they put more stock in things of a physical "seen and heard" nature then they do of other things. Had Joseph said, "I had a strong emotional feeling that I should create a church and that god was guiding me to do so" it would have significantly less impact then, "god appeared before me and spoke in a voice that I was able to hear."<br /><br />I just don't get how speaking in a voice that people can easily understand is a negative thing, or how that inhibits our ability to choose. Did interacting with your parents on a daily basis inhibit your ability to make choices that were against their wishes? I can say for myself that it did not stop me. I've learned much more from my parents then I could ever have hoped to learn from god because if I ask them a question I get an answer, if I ask god I get silence. Years of experience have taught me to value one of them much more then the other.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4819791164708512672011-04-17T22:48:59.009-05:002011-04-17T22:48:59.009-05:00"There are outward manifestations, but no way..."There are outward manifestations, but no way to look into someone's heart to observe what has happened."<br /><br />I would agree completely with this. This is however why science and religion are different. Science does not claim to be the only way to find truth. What it claims is that using a prescribed method we can (in a perfect ideological vacuum) find out truth with it's methods. This is a fundamentally different method then what you find your religious "evidence" with. Religion is not backed up by the scientific method because at it's core the scientific method doesn't examine those things which are not empirically falsifiable. Religion is not empirically falsifiable so science has nothing to say about it and likewise science could not do what it does if it started accepting the sort of evidence that religion gives out.<br /><br />One can certainly claim that there is some missing piece somewhere that will allow the same sort of methods we currently call the "scientific method" that when put into place answers all the questions and the apparent disagreements that these two forms of information gathering currently show vaporizes. I don't disagree with that at all.<br /><br />My main problem with all of this though is that such an outlook doesn't only work for mormonism, it also works for Islamic teachings, the "gift of tongues" found in some pentecostal churches today, the field of palm reading and psychic reading, or any other number of claims that keep telling us loudly that they are based on truth and that any apparent non-meshing with the scientific field is due to some flaw or misunderstanding that we currently have (though they are usually more quick to assume that science has it wrong in some way on their part. Funny that.)<br /><br />Essentially it comes down to this. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that you are lying or mistaken when you claim a spiritual experience lead you to know that the LDS church has god's authority on the earth. I can't say anything about it other then what my own personal experience is because as of yet (and it's possible this could change in the future) we are unable to map out what exactly is going on in the human mind, unable to tell which of is telling the truth and even if we could it would mean nothing to you. If I tell you that your brain patter is exactlsdy identical to that of another person's spritual experience (and the two of you were told in these two experiences two diametrically opposite things. For you that the BoM is true and for him that it is false. How much persuasive power would this have on you? None whatsoever. It's merely a testament to human ignorance and tells us nothing about the spiritual aspect of the thing (the part that is not physical and is therefore untestable and unfalsifiable.)<br /><br />Basically for religion to be taken seriously by scientists it would need to submit testable, falsifiable results that can be clearly unearthed with a large number of observations. I don't really get why people would try and argue that religious pursuits are akin to scientific pursuits because doing so would remove any protections that religion currently has from the naturalists. As it is religion seems to play the "supernatural and non scientific" card when it works to it's benefit and then try to claim that it's teachings are just as credible as the scientific ones for convincing people of the truth of something in all the other cases. It can't have it both ways.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85349337083641502712011-04-17T22:19:13.970-05:002011-04-17T22:19:13.970-05:00"I would disagree with the part about them no..."I would disagree with the part about them not leading a person to God. God is the ultimate source of all good."<br /><br />This response is my primary frustration, mainly because the word "good" is subjective. Let's say I'm pedaling my way to work on my bicycle very downtrodden over some financial woe that I find myself in. I've been praying fervently that god would help me overcome my current predicament. As I'm pedaling I notice in the gutter a $100 bill. This just so happens to be the exact amount that I'm short. I rejoice in my good fortune and thank god for this very obvious miracle that has been bestowed on me. Little do I know that a single mother had been on the way to walking her children to school and not noticing that her 2 year old was perusing her purse she had hung on the handle had (as 2 year olds are sometimes want to do) pulled this 100 dollar bill from her wallet and tossed it outside the cart. To her horror later that day she realizes that the bill is missing and that she now has no way to pay her electric bill. For fun lets say that she also is a fervent believer in Jesus christ and has ALSO been praying that he would help her in her financial woes. Is the act of that bill showing up in the gutter a "good" event? Or an "bad" event. Can god cause something good to happen at the same time (with the same act) cause a negative thing to happen? <br /><br />There are various apologetics responses I can think of here. Perhaps her losing the bill was really a blessing in disguise because it built her into a stronger woman. Perhaps he didn't cause either of these things and they take from it a meaning that wasn't really intended, but in such a case the man gains a testimony so the lord was able to make a good thing happen from a neutral or bad event. The trouble with such an outlook is that it is sufficiently vague enough to where it really says nothing and can be used to justify everything. In a scientific endeavor making a claim that is not falsifiable is pointless and will be thrown out because there is no use pursuing it. If I make the claim that pink unicorns exist in an alternate dimension and are the source of subatomic movements I'm welcome to believe so. It's not a remotely falsifiable claim though and as such it won't be taken seriously as it holds not scientific merit. <br /><br />Could god exist the way you believe he does? Sure. To try and claim that your belief is as legitimate as any scientific principle though... I'm just not seeing it. It really seems to me that religion's survival as an idea has been thanks to the vagueness of it's tenets.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59155431927067969162011-04-17T21:37:41.946-05:002011-04-17T21:37:41.946-05:00The very basic building blocks are different and o...<i>The very basic building blocks are different and one of them pushes for more acceptance of subjective annecdotal experience and the other pushes for a rejection of such types of "evidence".</i><br /><br />I will persist in my claim that the similarities outweigh the differences.<br /><br />Those seeking to understand the behavior of subatomic particles will examine evidence, postulate theories, devise and conduct experiments, and evaluate the results to determine whether the hypotheses are contradicted or supported. Others who might have an interest in the subject have a couple of choices: they can take your word for it, or they can repeat the experiments themselves.<br /><br />Those who seek to know God must follow precisely those same steps of observing evidence, etc.. One can tell others what one has found, and they can choose to either attempt to replicate the experiments or to take the claims on faith.<br /><br />The difference between the two - they are not identical - is that in the world of particle physics, for example, you can take someone else to the particle accelerator and jointly observe the experiment and the collection of data, whereas in matters religious you are the particle accelerator, and nobody can look into your soul to see what results you have obtained, or whether you have followed the procedure correctly. There are outward manifestations, but no way to look into someone's heart to observe what has happened.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-894385316223145532011-04-17T21:21:05.191-05:002011-04-17T21:21:05.191-05:00If he does wish to hide his existence from prying ...<i>If he does wish to hide his existence from prying eyes then being a omnipotent and omniscient being he would certainly be able to do so. Why would he do so though? What purpose does that bring about.</i><br /><br />Because he wants us to figure out how to seek and find truth. We are the 20-something kids who have been kicked out of the house so we can find out that we can, in fact, fend for ourselves as we learn to do so.<br /><br />Earth life was preceded by some amount of teaching and learning. Our growth reached a plateau that needed to be left behind, but further growth was impeded because of the intensity of God's love for us. In some ways, this is the final exam, we are now away from his presence to see how well we learned the lessons that were taught, and to also learn new and important things that have to be experienced to be truly learned.<br /><br /><i>I don't see why god would punish those that put confidence in the tools he gave them for learning by denying them knowledge that they need for survival and that they need in order to correctly navigate the test he has given them.</i><br /><br />I sense the frustration. Two points: first, we have a lot of tools at our disposal, but we have to use the correct tool depending on what it is we are trying to accomplish. God apparently wants us to find him with our hearts, not our heads, and so the intellect plays a subordinate role in the search for God. Feelings become important. We ourselves are the instrumentation.<br /><br />The second point is that God's primary objective is not to punish and deny. I think he would prefer to never punish or deny, but that is not the nature of the universe we inhabit - we ultimately either subject ourselves to the love of God or the hatred of Satan, it's our choice. If God were to inhibit our development by coddling and spoiling us, the end result would be that he would lose us to Satan.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29643182316750131182011-04-17T20:55:47.726-05:002011-04-17T20:55:47.726-05:00You're making the assumption here though that ...<i>You're making the assumption here though that the majority of religious people have got it right.</i><br /><br />I'm making the assumption that many religious people have got at least parts of it right. I'm not really in a position, however, to judge what's in their hearts and whether they've really gotten it right. That's between them and God.<br /><br /><i>You must be using some other metric to determine that they're not following the true god and that people of your belief system are. Basing it just on whether it has a profound impact on a person's life tells us nothing about whether it came from god.</i><br /><br />What you're repeating here is perhaps a form of provincialism. But the real God is the God of everybody, not just those who belong to one particular religious sect. God's blessing are available to all those who obey the laws upon which those blessings are predicated regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.<br /><br />LDS doctrine is that everything that is good comes from God. If you're a Baptist and you experience the love of God and a transformation in your life, it's from God.<br /><br />The point of having a "true" Church is not to deny blessings to those who don't subscribe to the beliefs of that Church. It is rather to provide a mechanism whereby more complete truth may be known, where that doctrine may be kept pure, and where Priesthood ordinances may be performed by authorized servants in a manner that is acceptable to God.<br /><br /><i>People have had profound impacts from the experience of going to prison, seeing a beautiful sunset or having a teacher believe in them. These are not (how could they be) signs that these prospective circumstances are part of god's plans or that they are leading the person to him.</i><br /><br />I would disagree with the part about them not leading a person to God. God is the ultimate source of all good.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79644135093421212972011-04-17T20:27:33.752-05:002011-04-17T20:27:33.752-05:00...what's true of my little parody is true of ...<i>...what's true of my little parody is true of Pops's tired apologetics. We might as well believe in Morpheus and the Matrix as in God and the afterlife.</i><br /><br />There are significant differences. God has been seen and has spoken face to face with human beings. He has explained why he doesn't reveal himself to the public at large, and why it was necessary for us to be removed from his presence for a brief experience on the earth. He sent an angel to give us the Book of Mormon. He allowed more than just a few people to see the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He sent Moses and Elijah to restore lost Priesthood keys. He called prophets to teach us the meaning and purpose of life so that we may know what to do and how to live to achieve happiness and ultimate freedom. He - the Father - sent his son - also God - on an assignment to join us in mortality, to descend below all things, to experience all pain and suffering, to carry the burden of all our crimes, so that he could empathize with us, comfort us, and ultimately save us if we are willing to be saved.<br /><br />The people who in recent times were burdened with a sure knowledge of God, because they saw him and conversed with him, established something that has flourished. Joseph and Hyrum were willing ("I go as a lamb to the slaughter") to be murdered by an angry mob rather than recant what they had seen and knew to be true. What more should they have done? What more could they have done to convince us that what they experienced truly happened?Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71511943220603814232011-04-17T17:26:41.373-05:002011-04-17T17:26:41.373-05:00I think the long and short of this discussion and ...I think the long and short of this discussion and the crux of it is that the types of evidence that science accepts as trustworthy vs the types of evidence that religion takes as trustworthy ARE at odds with one another. Science tries it's darndest (and never actually succeeds) in eliminating as much subjective analysis on a subject as possible. Think about the ideas that have been honed by science and the ones that are the most solid and helpful are the ones that are the easiest to look at objectively. Psychology... not as easy and as such it's conclusions aren't quite as solid as say classical mechanics. <br /><br />I guess one could say that the nature of the supernatural makes it impossible to use the scientific method on it. This seems like a fairly true statement. If one admits that though then they really can't make a claim that "science is more like Religion then people realize" The very basic building blocks are different and one of them pushes for more acceptance of subjective annecdotal experience and the other pushes for a rejection of such types of "evidence".Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38526135754369488302011-04-17T16:39:06.191-05:002011-04-17T16:39:06.191-05:00"You almost got that part right - where you w..."You almost got that part right - where you went astray is the bit about God. In a sense, though, I suppose they've chosen their god. Do they have the same objective as religious people? That's the difference."<br /><br />You're making the assumption here though that the majority of religious people have got it right. My point is that there's no real way to tell which group has it correct based on the the idea you laid out previously that if something is of god then the person will have a strong change of heart as they follow it's precepts and that it will cause a metamorphosis of their character. Some of those dead heads may have gained a huge appreciation for nature, and love. You must be using some other metric to determine that they're not following the true god and that people of your belief system are. Basing it just on whether it has a profound impact on a person's life tells us nothing about whether it came from god. People have had profound impacts from the experience of going to prison, seeing a beautiful sunset or having a teacher believe in them. These are not (how could they be) signs that these prospective circumstances are part of god's plans or that they are leading the person to him.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48925182053481756112011-04-17T16:30:21.033-05:002011-04-17T16:30:21.033-05:00"is it reasonable to expect that we could out..."is it reasonable to expect that we could outwit him in order to prove his existence if he doesn't wish to be so revealed?"<br /><br />So expecting the same sort of evidence we use for determining that everything else in life is a reality is a case of trying to "outwit" god? I'm not following here. <br /><br />If he does wish to hide his existence from prying eyes then being a omnipotent and omniscient being he would certainly be able to do so. Why would he do so though? What purpose does that bring about. In the new testament one of the apostles (I forget which) needed to feel the wound in Jesus' side to know that he had in fact died and resurrected. He's chastised lightly for this but Jesus seemed to indicate that for some people believing in things with out being able to use the typical analytical tools that we use in life will never be sufficient. I don't see why god would punish those that put confidence in the tools he gave them for learning by denying them knowledge that they need for survival and that they need in order to correctly navigate the test he has given them.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3941067180689926592011-04-17T16:25:07.639-05:002011-04-17T16:25:07.639-05:00"One reason we struggle to communicate is per..."One reason we struggle to communicate is perhaps because the LDS don't compartmentalize religion and science."<br /><br />I can see that. That seems to be the case. Except on any cases where there seems to be an interference between the two. Then it's usually a, "well in some celestial classroom in the afterlife I'll be happy to learn how this bit works with established doctrine but until then I'll live with not knowing." Nothing wrong with this tactic but generally people will say that and then turn around and continue teaching the bit of doctrine that they think is right and neglect to mention any possible problems it has meshing with other ideas that have good evidence.<br /><br />There also is an extreme difference in the way that people gather truth when they're in sunday school versus the way they do so on a daily basis. I have no need to pray and ask god if it's raining outside, or if gravitational force is still working as it did yesterday. I have no need to do these things because they're proven constantly via my direct experience of them. There is no need to express any faith in them because the moment they stop behaving that way is the moment that our understanding of them changes. <br /><br />Basically one can state that they have a strong belief in the LDS church being the one true church, the source of his communication with man, but to try and state that their knowledge of this idea is on par with the most solid of scientific pusuits is a flat out lie. The two are leaps and bounds apart. One of them can be tested in a way that is satisfying to every person that tries the test and another is satisfying only to those that come away with a particular burning in the bosom (which is far from all of them.)Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.com