curious about Mormonthink

[_DrW]

Tarski,

Thanks for the information and background. One meets the most facinating folks on these boards. I will certainly track down some or all of the URLs' you listed.

As you have probably guessed, we have a lot in common: former TBM, academic background, interest in science / math, etc. (except I was never very good with a guitar).

Like Prof. Peterson, I have experience in the Middle East, but have a little different take on Islamic cosmology and Islam in general. Some of these issues are discussed in:
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/pomopedia/Magical_Thinking_and_Why_Facts_Matter/

Thanks again.

[_DrW]

From Prof. Peterson's profile, it appears that he is fairly active on this site. I also see his name over at MADB. Looks as if he might not feel comfortable talking about cosmology, however.

I find this interesting since he brought up the issue with me. As you indicated earlier, he had not mentioned his interest in cosmology to you before./quote]
I'm seriously trying to back off from message boards in general, and this one very much in particular. They're a serious drain on my time.

As for contemporary cosmological theory, I simply don't have anything unique to say about the subject. I have no clear investment in inflationary models or the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze or anything of that sort. I read on the subject with interest, but I'm neither qualified to contribute to the debate nor convinced that I have a horse in the race.

No Problem, Professor,

Thanks for checking back in with us. Good luck on your trip.

[_DrW]

Cynthia,

If you are interested in MormonThink, you should probably not depend only on literature from the Mormon Church.

You might want to look at more objective literature as well. Because Mormonism is so controversial (and for good reason), there is plenty of literature out there. I hope that you will look at both sides. As you do, please consider the motivations behind the authors in all cases.

Yes, DrW, that's what I'm doing. I'm looking at many different points of view.

Many thanks for the link to the article about Magical Thinking. Interesting.

Yes, unquestioning faith can be dangerous. And any group which tries to keep its members from thinking for themselves is suspect.

But I don't think that all of the truth is to be found in what we humans have learned through scientific inquiry, either. Our minds are limited.

Here's an analogy: When my children were small, I did many things for their safety that they could not understand, like putting plugs in electrical outlets, strapping them into carseats, etc. Their minds were simply not yet capable of understanding the world as I do; they couldn't grasp the concepts, the dangers, that are part of the practical truth about the world. They didn't have the ability to comprehend these things.

I believe that my adult mind is similarly limited, that there are truths which I cannot grasp with my intellect... For me, that's where faith comes in.

I believe that, just as I was able to comprehend much more than my young children, there is that which I call God which can grasp ever-so-much more than I can.

And, if I am going to learn more about the world, beyond what my intellect knows, if I am going to learn more about God, more about what seem to be higher truths about reality, I must approach these things with more of myself than just my limited intellect.

So I believe there is definitely an appropriate role for faith, and that truth can be comprehended in more than one way. There are a variety of ways of knowing.

Learning about Mormonism challenges me to involve more of myself than just my mind - not to close down my mind, not at all, it's a useful tool - but not to limit myself only to that way of "knowing."

Thanks for the very reasonable response to my post. Here is where you and I differ: You believe in something for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever. I do not.

I believe in basing a worldview on objective, verifiable, reproducible facts. Once one invokes the supernatural to try and understand how the world works, the train jumps the tracks and we get into trouble; sometimes big trouble.

Once people believe that there is a supernatural force influencing human affairs, then they cease, in small or large ways, to take responsibility for their actions.

In Islam the second most used phrase is "God Willing". And they mean it. This crutch is used as an excuse for all kinds of neglect, failure, and adverse outcomes.

Now think about Christians. The same behavior pattern is involved in the murder of abortion doctors, homosexuals, etc., and in the battle against gays and others who do not share their narrow worldview.

Fundamental Islamists and fundamentalist Christians agree that humankind is headed for a final great battle between good and evil. The problem is that each group believes that they are the good and the other is the evil.

Can you see the problem here? Unfounded beliefs based on myth and legends that are thousands of years old, and supported and sustained by religion, are driving the world toward a decisive conflict.

Will Armageddon ever come to pass? I hope not. But if it does not, it will be because it was prevented by rational thinking people.

So, as you continue your search, I hope you will consider what rational thought has to offer. If you choose a path of reason and rationality, those feelings you attribute to the supernatural will still be there.

As a Mormon, I had warm comfortable feelings that I attributed to God and the Holy Ghost. I still have those feelings, and now know that they are a natural part of the human experience.

They can come from reaching the summit after a long climb, or being with your kids and grandkids when everyone is happy and having fun.

Thanks for reading this and again; Good Luck.

[_loves2sing]

Thanks for the very reasonable response to my post.

You're welcome.

However, your response to what I wrote seems less than reasonable.

Here is where you and I differ: You believe in something for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever. I do not.

Actually, I think you do. You believe that only things supported by what you call "objective evidence" can be true... and there's no objective evidence that the universe is actually structured that way.

And, of course, there are limits to our ability to recognize what is objective... Hundreds of years ago, people said that there was "objective evidence" that the sun revolves around the earth - just look, they would say, and you can see for yourself.

When I was pregnant with my youngest, who was born in 1993, I went to my first appointment with the obstetrician and told him that I had stopped smoking, drinking alcohol, and drinking coffee, for the sake of the developing baby. He told me that it was great that I had stopped smoking and drinking alcohol, but there was no scientific (i.e., objective) reason not to drink coffee. My intuition about it was quite strong, however, and I didn't follow his advice.

Since then, research results have shown that caffeine can be harmful to developing babies, and pregnant women are advised not to drink coffee. New evidence came out, and the "objective truth" has changed.

My intuition was actually more correct than the doctor's scientific "knowledge."

It's inevitable that some of what is accepted in science today will be disproved in the future, as new evidence comes in. And there's no way to predict which "objective truths" will be the ones that end up modified or abandoned.

It seems like a poor foundation for life, to me, to accept only these so-called objective truths, which are actually more like objective beliefs-of-the-moment.

Once people believe that there is a supernatural force influencing human affairs, then they cease, in small or large ways, to take responsibility for their actions.

This is a huge and unwarranted over-generalization. (Where's your objective evidence for this statement?)

I am by no means alone in my belief that (1) there is more than just the so-called objectively proven at work in our lives, and (2) I am responsible for my own actions and choices.

I think the opposite of your statement may be closer to the truth, that people who do not believe in anything beyond the so-called objective are likely to lose their ethical bearings as well, and adopt a belief that self-serving behavior is perfectly acceptable, even if it injures others.

In Islam the second most used phrase is "God Willing". And they mean it. This crutch is used as an excuse for all kinds of neglect, failure, and adverse outcomes.

Now think about Christians. The same behavior pattern is involved in the murder of abortion doctors, homosexuals, etc., and in the battle against gays and others who do not share their narrow worldview.

Fundamental Islamists and fundamentalist Christians agree that humankind is headed for a final great battle between good and evil. The problem is that each group believes that they are the good and the other is the evil.

Can you see the problem here? Unfounded beliefs based on myth and legends that are thousands of years old, and supported and sustained by religion, are driving the world toward a decisive conflict.

You've responded to my statements about why faith makes sense to me by bringing up the behavior of fanatics. But, of course, not all who have faith are fanatics like this... and atrocities have been committed in the name of objective, scientific research, such as Dr. Mengele's experiments for the Nazis, which included peeling skin off of living human beings (though these Jews were "objectively" less-than-human; the Nazis had all kinds of "objective" proof of this sub-humanity, and the "reasonable" Germans of the time believed it).

There are fanatics on both sides of this issue, unfortunately, and humankind has been harmed by those with faith in spiritual or religious teachings, by those with faith in political teachings, and by those with faith in scientific teachings as well.

I suspect you'd quickly agree that the behavior of the scientific extremists doesn't invalidate all science. It is equally true that the behavior of religious extremists does not invalidate all faith.

(And then there's the difference between spiritual faith and religious faith...)

[_DrW]

loves2sing

Thanks for your response

First of all, your statement that there is no objective evidence as to how the universe works indicates that you did not read, or do not understand, my statement in this regard. What I said was that a worldview should be based on objective evidence comprised of verifiable, reproducible facts.

For example, your claim that the earth-centric view of the cosmos was based on “objective evidence” is not valid. As I stated, objective evidence is comprised of verifiable, reproducible facts and is generated by observation, hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing, and finally acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. The view that the earth was at the center of the cosmos was a part of legend and myth from a pre-scientific era that was perpetrated by unwarranted belief in the Bible. It was not based on objective evidence.

In the earliest years of the scientific age, individuals such as Galileo began to collect objective evidence that the earth was not at the center of the cosmos. This advance in knowledge was opposed by the Church, and Galileo was put under house arrest. The Church has since apologized.

Your implication that ethics is derived from religion is also invalid. It is clear that ethics has developed as a natural part of the evolutionary process. In fact the great apes, who none would accuse of ever having been religious, display a fairly sophisticated comprehension and practice of ethics.

If anything, religion has hindered the development of ethics in society. A quick look at history shows that tremendous suffering, pain and death has been wrought by people who believed that they were doing the will of their God.

As for your example of Dr. Mengele and the Nazi’s, you should understand that Dr. Mangele was first and foremost a sadist. He conducted his experiments on humans because he could. His motives were based on believed the Nazi religion according to Hitler as set forth in “Mien Kampf.”

This is not to claim that scientists have done no wrong. However, the suffering caused by unethical scientists is nothing when compared to the suffering, pain and death caused by religion over the centuries. When mistakes are made in science, the peer review process finds and punishes the culprits. There are very few instances of scientific misconduct. When mistakes are made in religion, thousands or hundreds of thousands die (as in the inquisitions), and those responsible (such as the Pope) are often rewarded with great wealth.

The enterprise of science is set up for open discussion, peer review, and self-correction Scientists seek the truth. Religion on the other hand, and especially Mormonism, claims to have the truth and further discussion by adherents is unwanted and discouraged.

When the truth needs to be changed, (as with polygamy, or blacks in the priesthood, or blood atonement, or Joseph Smith’s first version story, for example), it will be done by the proper authorities, who will pray about it and then let the members know what God wants.

Can you see the important difference here? Can you see how one enterprise will eventually become irrelevant and damaging to society while the other continues to make progress because it is self-correcting?

The Nazi’s had the unfounded belief that what they called the Arian race had a manifest destiny to dominate the world. The Nazi’s used “pseudo-science” to “prove” their assertions in the same way that creationists use pseudo-science (such as “irreducible complexity”) to “prove” their assertions today. Of course, both the superiority of the Arian race claimed by the Nazis, and irreducible complexity as claimed by the intelligent design crowd, are both ridiculous and do not stand up under proper scientific scrutiny.

Finally, your example of your intuition regarding caffeine as being a manifestation of a supernatural influence in your life is a matter of belief. It is not objective evidence for a supernatural influence in you life. There is nothing wrong with such beliefs, as long as you recognize them for what they are.

[_Calculus Crusader]

For example, your claim that the earth-centric view of the cosmos was based on “objective evidence” is not valid. As I stated, objective evidence is comprised of verifiable, reproducible facts and is generated by observation, hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing, and finally acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. The view that the earth was at the center of the cosmos was a part of legend and myth from a pre-scientific era that was perpetrated by unwarranted belief in the Bible. It was not based on objective evidence.

Actually, it was based on observation. It looked (and still does) like the heavens revolve around the earth. They don't, of course, but the idea that they do was based on observation.

Your implication that ethics is derived from religion is also invalid. It is clear that ethics has developed as a natural part of the evolutionary process. In fact the great apes, who none would accuse of ever having been religious, display a fairly sophisticated comprehension and practice of ethics.

Such as? (Please provide sources, too.)

If anything, religion has hindered the development of ethics in society. A quick look at history shows that tremendous suffering, pain and death has been wrought by people who believed that they were doing the will of their God.

The pain and death caused by errant religionists pales in comparison to that caused by atheistic dictators and their followers.

This is not to claim that scientists have done no wrong. However, the suffering caused by unethical scientists is nothing when compared to the suffering, pain and death caused by religion over the centuries.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from you. Where are your numbers? Did religion create biological and nuclear weapons?

When mistakes are made in science, the peer review process finds and punishes the culprits. There are very few instances of scientific misconduct. When mistakes are made in religion, thousands or hundreds of thousands die (as in the inquisitions), and those responsible (such as the Pope) are often rewarded with great wealth.

The enterprise of science is set up for open discussion, peer review, and self-correction Scientists seek the truth. Religion on the other hand, and especially Mormonism, claims to have the truth and further discussion by adherents is unwanted and discouraged.

You have a very naïve view of science.

[_EAllusion]

Tarski -

Do you recall the article DCP wrote where he endorsed the argument that the 2nd law of the thermodynamics - or more specifically that the universe is tending towards a more random distribution of particles - rationally compels a personal God to "wind up" the universe at the start? I believe you attempted to discuss this article with him in the past. I think DCP made his views on cosmology and religion clear there if I recall.


---------------

I think science plays at least three important parts in making religion harder to believe in.

1) As science continues to explain more and more, religious arguments that are implicitly are explicitly based on the the lack of sound explanation for some phenomenon seem weaker than they already are. It's harder to argue that the motion of the planets supports the existence of a God because, after all, can you explain it? when we actually can explain it fairly well. In other words, God of the Gaps arguments seem weaker when we've filled the gaps.

2) Scientific epistemology has many positive traits that some ways of knowing used to justify religion do not and can be used as an example of a good way to go about knowing something to contrast against bad ways. That's not to say science is the only way one might legitimately know something, but it does provide a handy example to explain what's wrong with some proposed means.

3) To the extent that religions make empirical claims about the world, they can and with some frequency are shown explicitly wrong by modern scientific knowledge. Any religion that believes in a traditional, literal Noahic flood is easily demonstrated wrong.

[_Tarski]

Tarski -

Do you recall the article DCP wrote where he endorsed the argument that the 2nd law of the thermodynamics - or more specifically that the universe is tending towards a more random distribution of particles - rationally compels a personal God to "wind up" the universe at the start? I believe you attempted to discuss this article with him in the past. I think DCP made his views on cosmology and religion clear there if I recall.


---------------

I think science plays at least three important parts in making religion harder to believe in.

1) As science continues to explain more and more, religious arguments that are implicitly are explicitly based on the the lack of sound explanation for some phenomenon seem weaker than they already are. It's harder to argue that the motion of the planets supports the existence of a God because, after all, can you explain it? when we actually can explain it fairly well. In other words, God of the Gaps arguments seem weaker when we've filled the gaps.

2) Scientific epistemology has many positive traits that some ways of knowing used to justify religion do not and can be used as an example of a good way to go about knowing something to contrast against bad ways. That's not to say science is the only way one might legitimately know something, but it does provide a handy example to explain what's wrong with some proposed means.

3) To the extent that religions make empirical claims about the world, they can and with some frequency are shown explicitly wrong by modern scientific knowledge. Any religion that believes in a traditional, literal Noahic flood is easily demonstrated wrong.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/0 ... ology.html

[_JohnStuartMill]

DCP is clearly scared of having that discussion, Tarski. Remember when he refused to defend the cosmology article?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 35769&st=0

The article was an unserious piece on an advanced topic. It's clear that it was only written to keep the less-intelligent Mormons thinking that there was substance to the theistic position.

[_EAllusion]

The reasoning in that article is extremely poor. I'd have other adjectives for it, but this is the celestial section of the board. DCP is notorious for avoiding conversations that will likely damage his reputation. On the plus side, his avoidance discussing this with a few particular posters suggests he might have some inkling about just how bad his arguments were in that piece.