Nice video testimony from a prominent LDS scientist

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, my friend, do you not yet understand that one is not allowed to make whatever unfounded assertions they wish and claim that these assertions are consistent with science?

I do understand. I also understand that "science" is a very broad term.

Faith is the product of unfounded imaginings and belief without evidence. If that is what one is talking about (as was the individual in the video) then one should call it faith or religion, not science.

What evidence do you have that you will not be involved in an automobile accident tomorrow?

Yet you still drive to work. Why? Faith.

Fear results from lack of faith, not from faith itself. For example, you do not live your life in fear that you may be involved in said automobile accident because you have faith that you will arrive at work safely.

Scientific knowledge arises from the application of reason and logic to physical evidence (and lots of it), to build an internally consistent and predictive view of reality.

Please explain the physical evidence (let alone lots of it) that you will not be involved in an automobile accident, or a bank robbery tomorrow. Because of lack of evidence, do you assume that you will be involved in these events?

Religious faith arises from fear, superstition and ignorance.

Au contraire, mon frère. Fear is the result from lack of faith, as I have demonstrated.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

What evidence do you have that you will not be involved in an automobile accident tomorrow?

Yet you still drive to work. Why? Faith.

Fear results from lack of faith, not from faith itself. For example, you do not live your life in fear that you may be involved in said automobile accident because you have faith that you will arrive at work safely.

Or it might be because he has examined the evidence and found that the chances of him being in an accident are much, much less than the chances he will be able to drive safely and get to the places where he wants to go. And that the chances may go up or down based on the way he chooses to drive the car.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what it means to live a rational life. Faith is hardly required.

[_DrW]

Simon,

You seem to be a sincere individual and you really do try most of the time. I keep hoping that a little bit of the knowledge and wisdom you encounter here will rub off on you, but I am losing hope. (Or is it faith?)

I do understand. I also understand that "science" is a very broad term.

Science may be a broad term, but that does not mean that it is whatever you can imagine it to be. And what it is definitely not is religion.

What evidence do you have that you will not be involved in an automobile accident tomorrow?

Yet you still drive to work. Why? Faith.

Please explain the physical evidence (let alone lots of it) that you will not be involved in an automobile accident, or a bank robbery tomorrow. Because of lack of evidence, do you assume that you will be involved in these events?

With regard to your automobile accident analogy, the main thing it proves is that you really need to think a bit more about what you say before you say it.

Faith is unfounded belief and has nothing to do with whether or not I drive my car to work in the morning. I make a decision to drive my car to work in the morning based on (amazingly enough) probability.

I understand that the rate per mile driven of fatal accidents in the US is something on the order of 1.5 per 100 million vehicle miles. Since my round trip to and from work each day is about 10 miles, the overall probability that I will be killed driving to work is exceedingly low.

On the other hand, the probability that I will suffer financially and eventually might even annoy my dear wife if I do not drive to work is exceedingly high, so I choose to drive to work. The decision results from a cold calculation based on probability and risk - reward ratio, and has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

This explanation of the process makes the rest of your inappropriate auto accident analogy moot, so let's move on.

Au contraire, mon frère. Fear is the result from lack of faith, as I have demonstrated.

You state that fear results from a lack of faith, yet I note that the top (first in line) definitions of fear mention anxiety in the face of evil (painful emotion or passion excited by the expectation of evil), or God (fear of God). Fear of the unknown or impending doom are also prominently mentioned. Lack of control (or perceived lack of control) also induces fear and anxiety.

Evil, God , The Unknown, and Doom are all concepts associated with religion. Have you never noticed that institutions in the world that talk the most on faith are those that also do their best to generate fear? Hell, eternal damnation, outer darkness, Armageddon, - no wonder religionists need unfounded belief. They are fed a constant diets of unfounded fear-inducing superstition.

These fear inducing concepts (such as evil, God, doom, Armageddon, etc.) are mainly just that: superstitions. They arise from lack of knowledge (ignorance). Belief in them is not based on evidence. Such belief is unfounded and unfounded belief is, well, faith.

If one understands the basics of how the world works, and can therefore make reasonable decisions about the future actions and associated outcomes based on evidence and the probabilities that can be etimated based on this evidence (as in the driving to work example), one has little to fear because they are exercising what control they can over the situation.

If one chooses to remain ignorant of how the world works and gives up what control they might have instead to blindly follow other willfully ignorant folks who claim to be in posession of religious "truths", then one has much to fear. One needs a great deal of faith (unfounded belief) in what these uninformed leaders have said in order to overcome that fear.

Please think about this, Simon. Doing so might help you.

[_Milesius]

Apart from the bogus theology that is specific to Mormonism, including the references to the fraudulent Book of Moses, I don't have a problem with what he said.

[_Buffalo]

Apart from the bogus theology that is specific to Mormonism, including the references to the fraudulent Book of Moses, I don't have a problem with what he said.

You reject the bogus Mormon parts while retaining the bogus Christian parts, in other words.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

You seem to be a sincere individual and you really do try most of the time. I keep hoping that a little bit of the knowledge and wisdom you encounter here will rub off on you, but I am losing hope. (Or is it faith?)

Likewise, except when it concerns Mormonism. Tactics you would normally recognize as wrong or illogical are employed by you when it concerns Mormonism, like your favorite No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't know why you're so angry at the church, but I do hope it doesn't affect other areas of your life.

Science may be a broad term, but that does not mean that it is whatever you can imagine it to be. And what it is definitely not is religion.

In a way, it is. Religious belief sets out to understand the universe and our place in it. It uses personal evidence, spiritual experience, and faith to define these things.

Science also sets out to understand the universe and our place in it. It uses evidence, trial and error, and faith to define these things.

At the uppermost levels -- the levels at which one has a full understanding of both disciplines, science and religion agree 100%. I do not claim to be a scientist or to understand much about science -- that's your realm. I do claim to be a religionist, and I know much about my religion. Neither of us understand both disciplines enough to see where they agree, but the advantage I have is faith.

With regard to your automobile accident analogy, the main thing it proves is that you really need to think a bit more about what you say before you say it.

Faith is unfounded belief and has nothing to do with whether or not I drive my car to work in the morning. I make a decision to drive my car to work in the morning based on (amazingly enough) probability.

So, you do a statistical analysis each morning? You wake up, hop on your computer and launch IBM SPSS while drinking your orange juice?

That must be very time consuming.

I understand that the rate per mile driven of fatal accidents in the US is something on the order of 1.5 per 100 million vehicle miles. Since my round trip to and from work each day is about 10 miles, the overall probability that I will be killed driving to work is exceedingly low.

Yet it still very much exists. What is the probability of having a medical emergency? What is the probability of a natural disaster? What is the probability of an asteroidal impact or other cosmologic event?

There are thousands of things that could happen to you. Do you have each of these variables in your SPSS statistical model?

My guess is that you do not. You wake up each morning with the faith and courage to carry on in this extremely dangerous world. You also have faith in the statistics that others have done, and that those statistics haven't changed. You have faith that you'll make it to work and back safely.

Evil, God , The Unknown, and Doom are all concepts associated with religion.

What?

Evil exists independent of religion or the supernatural. You're going against centuries of ethical philosophy here.

The unknown exists independent of religion or the supernatural. Are you kidding me? The universe is largely unknown, is that the product of religion? If there weren't an unknown, there would not be science.

Hell, eternal damnation, outer darkness, Armageddon, - no wonder religionists need unfounded belief. They are fed a constant diets of unfounded fear-inducing superstition.

We don't emphasize any of those things. I've never feared any of them because they weren't taught.

These fear inducing concepts (such as evil, God, doom, Armageddon, etc.) are mainly just that: superstitions. They arise from lack of knowledge (ignorance).

Oh, you mean the unknown?

If one chooses to remain ignorant of how the world works and gives up what control they might have instead to blindly follow other willfully ignorant folks who claim to be in posession of religious "truths", then one has much to fear. One needs a great deal of faith (unfounded belief) in what these uninformed leaders have said in order to overcome that fear.

So you do perform your own statistical analysis each morning?

Or do you rely on other folks' previous analyses?

Please think about this, Simon. Doing so might help you.

Help me do what?

[_DrW]

In a way, it is. Religious belief sets out to understand the universe and our place in it. It uses personal evidence, spiritual experience, and faith to define these things.

Science also sets out to understand the universe and our place in it. It uses evidence, trial and error, and faith to define these things.

At the uppermost levels -- the levels at which one has a full understanding of both disciplines, science and religion agree 100%. I do not claim to be a scientist or to understand much about science -- that's your realm. I do claim to be a religionist, and I know much about my religion.

Simon,

Equating science with religion is not a good idea, because when you do, the next question you will be asked is, "Which religion is it that you believe equates with science?"

Is it Mormonism? Scientology? Islam? Christianity? Judaism?

And you just can't answer that question. If you say it is Mormonism, any high school science student could clean your clock in short order. if you name another religion, then, well, you are in trouble, aren't you?.

You do not know that science and religion agree 100%. You simply have an unfounded belief that they do. Scientists have a great deal of evidence that they don't.

Of all the silly claims that religionists make regarding science, this is probably the silliest.

Neither of us understand both disciplines enough to see where they agree, but the advantage I have is faith.

As I have said before, you don't get to just say anything you wish, without evidence, and expect to prevail in a discussion because you proclaim "faith". You just look silly (because to do so is silly).

In a debate or argument one makes as assertion and then backs it up with evidence. Your approach here is to make any statement you wish and then say that you have faith that it is true.

You stated above that the world is a dangerous place. If you believe this, have you ever thought that it is a dangerous place because too many people in it think like you do?

Seriously, Simon: Warren Jeffs had faith that it is okay to have sex with 12 year old females. Joseph Smith must have had less faith, because he stopped with 14 years olds. However, the motivations and faith as an excuse, were the same. Fundamental Islamists have the unfounded belief that it is okay to fly planes into building and kill thousands of innocent people. Scientologists have faith that they can be influenced by thetans, and for Mormons, it is Satan and demons.

Come on Simon, Really?

[_Buffalo]

At the uppermost levels -- the levels at which one has a full understanding of both disciplines, science and religion agree 100%. I do not claim to be a scientist or to understand much about science -- that's your realm. I do claim to be a religionist, and I know much about my religion. Neither of us understand both disciplines enough to see where they agree, but the advantage I have is faith.

Simon, science and religion rarely agree. And I have yet to encounter a poorer "religionist" than you. You don't really understand your own religion, let alone science.

[_Themis]

At the uppermost levels -- the levels at which one has a full understanding of both disciplines, science and religion agree 100%. I do not claim to be a scientist or to understand much about science -- that's your realm.

How can you know that science and religion at the highest levels agree 100% when you then say you are not a scientist and don't understand much about science?

I do claim to be a religionist, and I know much about my religion. Neither of us understand both disciplines enough to see where they agree, but the advantage I have is faith

You make the claim, but having seen many of your posts, especially when you first arrived showed that you did not understand much about your own religion. You were the one expert on Joseph Smith who didn't actually know much about him. Now what advantage does faith give you? Most of us had plenty of faith in the LDS religion and understand it as well or better then you seem to.

[_Jason Bourne]

What evidence do you have that you will not be involved in an automobile accident tomorrow?

Yet you still drive to work. Why? Faith.

Fear results from lack of faith, not from faith itself. For example, you do not live your life in fear that you may be involved in said automobile accident because you have faith that you will arrive at work safely.

No not really. I know from experience that it is likely I can drive with out accident but at the same time knowing that there is data that shows their is inherent risk. So because the risk is low I am willing to take the risk. No faith involved here.

Same for riding my bike on the open road. I ride in good weather 100-150 miles a week. I know there is risk because every year about 100 deaths occur by cyclist getting hit be a car. But I still take the risk be cause the benefit and enjoyment I get out weighs what I calculate to be a low risk. No faith involved. And I have had a few close calls.