What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_asbestosman]

Religious verification isn't science in the sense that it isn't publicly verifiable. However, I believe that like science it is a valid and justifiable way to discern truth.

But that's the point - it's nothing like science as we know it! It's pseudoscience. It purports to be science, or give the same results as science (ie "it's just as valid as real science") but it's not, because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

I don't recall public verification as a step in the scientific metiod. Repition, yes, but public verification, no. How does experimenting on the word not follow the scientific method?

Sure, you could be right, but again, it's not science. Like I said earlier, that's how we got started here, right?

Sagan said religion is pseudoscience
You said "no it's not - here's some quotes from the FARMS review where it shows that religion (the LDS religion more specifically) is not pseudoscience - it is science"
And you also gave ZKP as an example to demonstrate how it could be considered science.

Again, whether you're right or not is irrelevant. How you purport to get there is - and it's not science.

It's not the same as other sciences, but then biology is not the same as astronomy. Why is individual verification/falsification not science? The results are repeatable for each individual experiencing it. It's different only in that people cannot perform the experiments in groups.

[_asbestosman]

Abman, but what you're saying is that the results may not be publicaly verifiable because of the fickleness of God in the manner in which he provides the answers, however you as an individual can discern and trust the real answer from God, despite this fickleness?

No. The the fickleness lies with people (like me), not with God. God is trustworthy. It is me and my fellow-man who aren't so trustworthy.

[_asbestosman]

By the way, how many points do I score in Mental Gymnastics? ;)

[_Who Knows]

I don't recall public verification as a step in the scientific metiod. Repition, yes, but public verification, no. How does experimenting on the word not follow the scientific method?

It's not the same as other sciences, but then biology is not the same as astronomy. Why is individual verification/falsification not science? The results are repeatable for each individual experiencing it. It's different only in that people cannot perform the experiments in groups.

I'm thinking more along the lines of 'observeable'. Or 'reproduceable'. Or 'measurable'. Can you show me your result? Can I observe it? Can I measure it?

I'm sure there's some form of 'independence' that's required as well (I can't just perform the experiment on myself) - to eliminate any sort of bias.

[_asbestosman]

I'm thinking more along the lines of 'observeable'. Or 'reproduceable'. Or 'measurable'. Can you show me your result? Can I observe it? Can I measure it?

I cannot show you my result, but you can reproduce it for yourself--at least in principle. You can observe it and measure it for yourself. I cannot do that for you.

I'm sure there's some form of 'independence' that's required as well (I can't just perform the experiment on myself) - to eliminate any sort of bias.

I agree that double-blind experiments are preferable when possible, however I do not think it is possible for religion. I'm uncertaain of how one would concoct a double-blind experiment for astronomy. It could, however, be independant in some sense. I think the only independence in the religious case is that each person can independently verify things. That we claim different results (without a public means of reconciliation) is the biggest difference between religion and other sciences.

[_Sethbag]

I'm going with 5.7 so far for technical merit, but 6.0 for artistic expression. That's pretty good, and probably enough to get you to the medal round.

[Anonymous]

Why is individual verification/falsification not science? The results are repeatable for each individual experiencing it. It's different only in that people cannot perform the experiments in groups.

It might be, if there were some kind of uniform criteria for judging the results. The problem is, in religion a positive answer from God is in the eye of the beholder.

A guy loses his car keys, prays about it, and ten minutes later remembers he left them on his nightstand. For some, that's a positive "hit" for God. For others, that's just you remembering where you left your keys. Someone pays their tithing and three months later a stranger helps them change a flat tire on the side of the highway. For some, that's a "hit" for God blessing their lives, for others, that's just a fellow citizen doing a good deed because, you know, we're not all assholes in this society.

As I said above, what counts as confirmation is totally in the eye of the beholder. Joseph Smith may well have been able to ask questions of God and get his answer in the form of a personal visitation, but the rest of us have to make do with things that happen around us that may or may not be coincidences, feelings that may or may not be just emotional reactions, shivers up our spine, a bad meal, or a rough day at work.

[_grampa75]

I have experienced in my life time many people who have apostized from the Church. It usualy seems to me that the person who has left the church or will leave the Church has indulged in practices that the Mormon Church only allows long enough for a person to come to his or her sense and repents. One other way is when a man or woman has become offended by a Bishop's, stake President's or Apostle's remarks that may have offended the person. King Soloman wrote;

("A man offended is harder to win than a strong city.)

If it has been a teaching of the Church that has offended a person then please let us know what the offense was, in that way perhaps we may be able to correct a man's teachings.

I have heard said in the Church that a prophet of God is not able to lead people astray. Well, in the right light I could agree with that; "If we ask God about any teaching from any person, no matter if that person belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ or is a prophet or apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ, it will then be God who will testify to us, one way or the other, or if the teaching is true or it is not. It is as easy as that. Let me give you another example where in some cases where the individual who leaves the Church if not familiar enough with the Churches actual teachings to judge the truth of any teaching.

Isaiah 5: 13 Wherefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.

14. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure; and theri glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

As I'm sure you can envision by that verse that knowledge or reading every day out of the word of God, no matter if it comes from the Bible or Mormon scriptures you will find the truth in the word of God and the inspiration that all our scriptures but we are NEVER supposed to take the word of ANY MAN if the spirit does not bear witness to us that what the man said is true. Here is a good example of a misinterpretation;

The Church of Jesus Christ has taught since it was organized that we are the spirit born children of our Father in heaven.

Now that teaching is definitely true but I personally have to disagree with the interpretation. Allow me to quote you a passage from the book "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, on pages 352 to 354;"

"I liken a spirit like unto the ring on my finer because it has no beginniing and no ending. If I were to cut it in two, then it would have a beginning but it would also have an ending. Join them again and they become one eternal round. All the fools and learned and wise men who teach from the beginning of creation who say a spirit has a beginning my also teach that it has an ending. And if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true but if I am right I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God could not create his own spirit self. Intelligence is eternal spirit and exists upon a self-existant principle and there is no creation. In the beginning all men were co-equal with God."

Apparently all of the spirits or Intelligence, who were able of becoming human kind were exactly like any other intelligence in power, and power was the only power that Intelligence they exibited. I won't go into that doctrine any deeper since I have an desire to do, but I only leave everyone confused.

But Mormons also believe that they will, at some time in the eternities to come, have the opportunity, but since it is shown to us in the scriptures that not only is Jesus Christ the Savior of this earth He is also the God of this earth. And since we are the children of Jesus Christ by becoming His sons and His daughter, then it appears to me that the God we may aspire to is one other Savior on some other world to suffer for the sins of mankind.

Ether 3: 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people, Behold, I am Jesus Christ, I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life and that eternally. even they who believe on my name shall become my sons and my daughters.

As you see, Jesus Christ has spirit children born to him when they become baptized into Christ's name. And apparently Jesus Christ is the only God or Child who has children born to him; that tends to teach us that we may become a Savior. Good Job, but the benifits are not as desirable to me. LOL

[_Who Knows]

I'm thinking more along the lines of 'observeable'. Or 'reproduceable'. Or 'measurable'. Can you show me your result? Can I observe it? Can I measure it?

I cannot show you my result, but you can reproduce it for yourself--at least in principle. You can observe it and measure it for yourself. I cannot do that for you.

I'm sure there's some form of 'independence' that's required as well (I can't just perform the experiment on myself) - to eliminate any sort of bias.

I agree that double-blind experiments are preferable when possible, however I do not think it is possible for religion. I'm uncertaain of how one would concoct a double-blind experiment for astronomy. It could, however, be independant in some sense. I think the only independence in the religious case is that each person can independently verify things. That we claim different results (without a public means of reconciliation) is the biggest difference between religion and other sciences.

I don't even know what to say any more. It fails on so many levels. what's re-produceable? what are we measuring? what can anyone else verify? where's the elimination of bias? can we perform statistically valid studies? can this all be documented for review by anyone else?

[_asbestosman]

where's the elimination of bias?

Crap. Looks like you win.

I still wonder though if science is really the best way to learn about the truth about everything.