What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_asbestosman]

If science and religion both have value then they would not contradict, which they do.

True science and true religion do not.

Yeah, that's the no-true-Scotsman-fallacy, but what ya gonna do? We probably have different ideas of what true science and true religion are.

[_Mercury]

If science and religion both have value then they would not contradict, which they do.

True science and true religion do not.

Yeah, that's the no-true-Scotsman-fallacy, but what ya gonna do? We probably have different ideas of what true science and true religion are.

I'm sure we do. The problem for you is that my version of science is also the same view the majority of scientists hold to be true. You on the other hand have very marginalized views on what constitutes proper science, or you look more into speculative science than is neccesary.

[_maklelan]

So you agree that a sentient being with free will, like any human, cannot have their decision making defined and predicted by science?

Ok man, enough of the questions followed by putting words in my mouth. I've given you my position.

I'm just trying to make sure my reasoning is following yours. Science can predict the motion of the planets and the reaction of chemicals because they operate within a system that is defined by very precise and mathematical axioms. The Greek philosophers who pioneered this kind of thinking tried to do the same with the human mind, and it didn't work out. Instead they defined love as a type of insanity and decided that the most noble and logical human beings were those who could entirely suppress human emotion and act only upon the same axioms that dictated the motion of the planets. Astrology (from ancient Greece on) is built on this principle - the motion of the universe is predictable and orderly and humans are subordinate to the universe, so human interaction must be defined by the same set of rules. When someone undertakes to test human emotion or any kind of choices involving reason or agency they travel outside of what science can confidently predict and they have to settle for probability, and even that is shaky. Any kind of test that seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God has to operate within those parameters, and can thus only provide a rough probability. God says that if we pray we can receive an answer, but this is all dependent upon his will, which we are not privy to. Testing a group of people who reads and prays about the Book of Mormon cannot account for that variable.

[_The Dude]

Maybe I still don't understand, but this is how I would falsify my experience (that lead me to faith in God and His church):

I believe that one could know it was false one truly and sincerely (in their own honest estimation, not mine) tried to follow the commandments and found that it didn't work--that the promises were not true--that they do not find happiness and enlightenment from it.

I would not use the excuse that if I receive a contradictory experience that I must not have been sincere. I think I could know for myself in my own honest estimation. I would not use the excuse that "God is testing my faith" or whatever. If I don't find happiness and peace from keeping the commandments (say, after a few months), then I would consider His doctrine to be falsified.

Yeah. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing.

The quotes from the FARMS review of The Demon Haunted World mentioned Joseph Smith's direct experience (i.e. First Vision) as the great example of religious experimentation. With almost zero practice as a religious person (and does the treasure hunting stuff count for him or against him?) Joseph Smith went into isolation to petition God, and he was answered with the most fantastic vision imaginable. I think the closest thing we can hope for is to have a really good experience when we pray about the Book of Mormon, or something similar, maybe in the temple. That's the kind of experiment and result I've been talking about because that's what I took from the quotes.

So you are talking about the results of a few months of being a committed Mormon? Is that what you meant all along? If so, then okay, we aren't connecting.

The quotes you provided did say

However, we find in the writings of Joseph Smith an argument for the existence of God—he obtained that knowledge from direct experience.

What experience?

Also, it said,

Sagan seems to think that religious belief is only supported by emotion, that we persist because it feels good, and we wish it to be true. To the contrary, the results of experiments of faith provide the same kind of rational basis for belief as science.

So the data from religious experiments is not "emotion" or "because it feels good" but is able to "provide the same kind of rational basis for belief as science."

Do you agree with that Asbestosman? What is this reviewer talking about?



Regardless, I agree when you say (as I understand) that the underlying honesty with onesself is the (or a) determining factor. If our measures are "am I happy" and "do I feel enlightened" then of course all that matters is if we are being honest with ourself.

I think I'm honest with myself, I'm damn happy, I feel enlightened compared to where I was before, so what could be more true than this? Ten years of accumulated religious/lifestyle experiments have proven my non-belief is true!

[_Who Knows]

God says that if we pray we can receive an answer, but this is all dependent upon his will, which we are not privy to. Testing a group of people who reads and prays about the Book of Mormon cannot account for that variable.

That's fine. What I (and The Dude's doing a better job of it) are saying is that religion is not subject to the same rules as science, contrary to what Eyring said, "The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion."

The book that was suggested to you was The Demon Haunted World. In it, Sagan argues that religion is pseudoscience - whereas the FARMS review argues that religion (and especially the Mormon religion) follow the rules of science (as evidenced by the Eyring quote above).

So what do you think?

[_Who Knows]

I think I'm honest with myself, I'm damn happy, I feel enlightened compared to where I was before, so what could be more true than this? Ten years of accumulated religious/lifestyle experiments have proven my non-belief is true!

That's science man! But wait, how can 2 people get 2 different answers following the rules of science?

[_harmony]

I think I'm honest with myself, I'm damn happy, I feel enlightened compared to where I was before, so what could be more true than this? Ten years of accumulated religious/lifestyle experiments have proven my non-belief is true!

That's science man! But wait, how can 2 people get 2 different answers following the rules of science?

Because no two people are the same. No two people have exactly the same experiences, or view the world through the same filter. So no two people will get exactly the same answer, or they may interpret the answer differently, based on their experiences and filters.

[_asbestosman]

So you are talking about the results of a few months of being a committed Mormon? Is that what you meant all along? If so, then okay, we aren't connecting.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I had in mind.

The quotes you provided did say

However, we find in the writings of Joseph Smith an argument for the existence of God—he obtained that knowledge from direct experience.

What experience?

Ah, I see. You're right that my ZKP application would not allow us to simply take Joseph Smith's account of his experience as good evidence. Otherwise we'd also need to take critics evidence as counter-evidence. I think the only fair thing to do is to withold judgment on both while trying to see for yourself.

Also, it said,

Sagan seems to think that religious belief is only supported by emotion, that we persist because it feels good, and we wish it to be true. To the contrary, the results of experiments of faith provide the same kind of rational basis for belief as science.

So the data from religious experiments is not "emotion" or "because it feels good" but is able to "provide the same kind of rational basis for belief as science."

Do you agree with that Asbestosman? What is this reviewer talking about?

I agree that religious belief is more than emotion. However, I believe the experiments consist of keeping the commandments--that sort of thing. I do not believe that the experiments are like Templeton Foundation's double-blind prayer experiment. I believe that the experiments are usually the personal experience one has of doing Christ's will and thereby knowing His doctrine.

Regardless, I agree when you say (as I understand) that the underlying honesty with onesself is the (or a) determining factor. If our measures are "am I happy" and "do I feel enlightened" then of course all that matters is if we are being honest with ourself.

I think I'm honest with myself, I'm damn happy, I feel enlightened compared to where I was before, so what could be more true than this? Ten years of accumulated religious/lifestyle experiments have proven my non-belief is true!

Good for you. I think in some sense my ZKP idea is more to keep religion and science as safe from each other as possible. I grant that religion is different than science in some respects, but I think they are both valid methods of determining truth. I believe both have experiments and can be falsified. The main difference is that religion can only be verified or falsified on a personal level. Because of that one difference, I believe that religion should not be taught as science (although the ZKP should continue to be taught as it is).



Now, I wonder how I'd score on the crackpot index with my idea. Anywhere in the neighborhood in Nibley, Newton, or Penrose? Sometimes I wonder.

[_Who Knows]

Good for you. I think in some sense my ZKP idea is more to keep religion and science as safe from each other as possible. I grant that religion is different than science in some respects, but I think they are both valid methods of determining truth. I believe both have experiments and can be falsified. The main difference is that religion can only be verified or falsified on a personal level.

But is that really anything even approaching science? It can only be verified or falsified on a personal level?

Can I pretty much make up anything I want, say that it can only be verified/falsified personally, and then say that it's science?

You can verify the spaghetti monster if you pray really hard about it. I can't prove that to you, you just have to try it for yourself. But I know that it works, because it works for me.

Is that really anything approaching science?

[_asbestosman]

Good for you. I think in some sense my ZKP idea is more to keep religion and science as safe from each other as possible. I grant that religion is different than science in some respects, but I think they are both valid methods of determining truth. I believe both have experiments and can be falsified. The main difference is that religion can only be verified or falsified on a personal level.

But is that really anything even approaching science? It can only be verified or falsified on a personal level?

Can I pretty much make up anything I want, say that it can only be verified/falsified personally, and then say that it's science?

You can verify the spaghetti monster if you pray really hard about it. I can't prove that to you, you just have to try it for yourself. But I know that it works, because it works for me.

Is that really anything approaching science?

It's more than prayer. Have you tried the FSM's doctrine? Does it work? Even if it did, I'm under no obligation to agree with you until I see for myself.

It approaches science in that ZKP is indeed a valid method of learning about whether something is correct. It is different in that you can't prove to others that you know it is correct.