Split Thread: Science vs. faith

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

None of those folks claimed to be speaking to god.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: ...

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

I think you're missing a basic understanding of the difference between the scientific method and religious revelation. Science by definition is self-correcting. It's not shameful or embarrassing for people to admit that--it's the heart of what makes it work so well. There is no scientific equivalent to religious prophecies or revelations. Only religious people are claiming to have eternal truth through revelation.

If you want to discuss Brigham Young from a cultural and social perspective, sure, I figure lots of folks here would be glad to do that, including me.

I've posted a few links in this thread to non-Mormon contemporaries who made similar claims as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young about race, health, the American Indians, etc. The more one looks at their contemporaries, the less JS and BY sound as if they had special insight from a god.

So it means applying Occam's razor, which would indicate that the simplest explanation for Brigham Young's leadership is that, like most leaders who emerge, he had a dominating personality and was at the right time and place to grab power, rather than that there's a creator of the universe with extraordinary powers who chose him alone to lead a small group in the American west.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

None of those persons claimed to be a prophet of the discipline of science. None of them claimed to have god's ear either.

[skyrider44]

Originally Posted by John Jones

None of those persons claimed to be a prophet of the discipline of science. None of them claimed to have god's ear either.

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

I think the bolded part is missing a citation. It's not just your personal opinion, since you stated it as fact.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

You mean in your opinion, science was their God.

I guess we'll add the discipline of science to the list of things you don't understand.

Science doesn't have an altar, theology, or dogma. There is no priest hood and no prophets. No miracles are claimed and no promises of an afterlife are made. Science doesn't depend on the supernatural or blind faith.

I don't want different standards for scientists and theists, but I recognize that they exist.

I think it would be pretty good for the world if religion had to depend on empirical, reproducible evidence, falsifiability, and the peer review process.

Something tells me that you would complain about that too.


Have a glass of wine or something. You seem needlessly peevish.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

I want the same for both. Evidence. Where is your evidence? Humans are fallible. We don't claim that science is inerrant. We claim that truth is empirical not revealed. Big difference.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable.

The sad thing is you probably really do believe that.

Quote:

You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

We expect people who are stating what has been revealed to them by God to make fewer silly factual errors than people who aren't. Well actually we don't expect that, because we think they're either lying or deluded, but we would if we believed them.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. .

No altars in science. Altars are for theists who believe without needing proof. Einstein did not develop the theory of relativity by getting down on his knees and talking to an imaginary being.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

Worshiping at the altar of god is a bad thing?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable.

Oh please, you sound like a young-Earth creationist. Science is a methodology for testing ideas about the workings of nature. One of its most fundamental ideas is that no idea is above doubt. Major theories have been discarded or modified in the face of new evidence all through the history of scientific inquiry.

Quote:

You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

When one person says, "I think this may be how this observed natural phenomenon works based on these tests. I could be wrong though, so let's publish my work and get a bunch of other researchers to go through my methodology looking for faults, and run the tests themselves to see if they get the same results", and another person says, "God spoke to me personally and said that a '67 Dodge Dart is in orbit around a star in the Andromeda galaxy. This demonstrates his great power so you must worship him. Prove me wrong", then I am going to hold both claims to the same standard of evidence.

[PHLeal]

Here is the thing Foster Zygote... like most apologetics, skyrider seems to think science works like religion - by revelation, not through testing and evidence - and as such thinks any new information or changes in any theory proves science is a "false god". I've worked with a person who thought EXACTLY like that. He was a young earth creationist, biblical literalist, and firmly believed scientists were satan's handymen. Skyrider seems to think almost the same way, IMHO.

Another guy who studied with me once asked for "a single scientist that hadn't sold his soul to the devil"...it's sad and ennervating...

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by PHLeal

Here is the thing Foster Zygote... like most apologetics, skyrider seems to think science works like religion - by revelation, not through testing and evidence - and as such thinks any new information or changes in any theory proves science is a "false god". I've worked with a person who thought EXACTLY like that. He was a young earth creationist, biblical literalist, and firmly believed scientists were satan's handymen. Skyrider seems to think almost the same way, IMHO.

Another guy who studied with me once asked for "a single scientist that hadn't sold his soul to the devil"...it's sad and ennervating...

The ones I've dealt with and remember most were the xians who simultaneously criticize science for being both dogmatic and fickle. They didn't have a clue about the discipline of science.

[Foster Zygote]

Back to the subject of this thread: Skyrider44, can you support your assertion that the formulation of scientific hypotheses requires faith? If not, will you admit that your claim was erroneous?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by PHLeal

Here is the thing Foster Zygote... like most apologetics, skyrider seems to think science works like religion - by revelation, not through testing and evidence - and as such thinks any new information or changes in any theory proves science is a "false god". I've worked with a person who thought EXACTLY like that. He was a young earth creationist, biblical literalist, and firmly believed scientists were satan's handymen. Skyrider seems to think almost the same way, IMHO.

Another guy who studied with me once asked for "a single scientist that hadn't sold his soul to the devil"...it's sad and ennervating...

I had a very good biology professor who related a story about his daughter's 3rd grade field trip to a dinosaur dig while they were living in Montana. He said that a couple of her classmates we denied permission to make the excursion because their parents were certain that fossils were all fakes planted by evil paleontologists at the behest of Satan. I **** you not.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

I want the same standard for both.
It would be a great boon to the world if people would be willing to, in the face of evidence, completely abandon a hypothesis and form a new one.
I see that happen on a daily basis in science.
Imagine what religion would look like if that was also common practice.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Science was their God; they worshipped at its altar. My analogy is fully applicable. You want one standard for scientists and another for theologians.

Wow, you've managed a statement that's both laughably false and remarkably lacking in self-awareness. Well done!

[skyrider44]

Originally Posted by Empress

Who here is claiming that scientists are infallible?

You ask a question based on a supposition not of my making.

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

You ask a question based on a supposition not of my making.

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

• What good is a prophet if god doesn't correct the prophet when he misrepresents god?
• What is the difference between a church with a prophet and a church without a prophet if we cannot trust that the prophet will tell us the truth (see Adam god doctrine, blood doctrine, and ugly racist remarks)?
• What good is a prophet if god tells the prophet not to drink hot drinks for the good of his followers but neglects to tell the prophet about germs?

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail.

Who makes the call?

[skyrider44]

Originally Posted by John Jones

You mean in your opinion, science was their God. I guess we'll add the discipline of science to the list of things you don't understand.

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

I assume that most of those who demand science-based answers from Janadele are atheists (not just critics of the LDS Church). That being the case, it seems to me that Janadele would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

Quote:

: Science doesn't have an altar, theology, or dogma.

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Quote:

: You seem needlessly peevish.

Your finite senses seem to be picking up errant data.

[carlitos]

Perhaps you haven't been around here much. The burden of proof is to show some evidence for God, not the other way around.

And we didn't discover quarks or the Higgs-Bosun with "humankind's finite senses," there was some laboratory equipment involved.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

If Jesus could show himself to Thomas then Jesus can show himself to me.

Faith in Ganesh is not justified.
Faith in Allah is not justified.
Faith in Zeus is not justified.
Faith in Yahweh is not justified.

Quote:

I assume that most of those who demand science-based answers from Janaelle are atheists (not just critics of the LDS Church). That being the case, it seems to me that Janaelle would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

I take the null hypothesis. Just as I take the null hypothesis that Leprechauns exist. The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. I'm not claiming that god does not exist. I'm claiming there is no justification to believe in gods and leprechauns.

Quote:

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Many people who work in laboratories conducting scientific research are Mormons. So, those Mormons worship science.

Science has no dogma. Science does not require or even ask for fealty. Science holds nothing sacred. Science has no prophets. Science is simply a means to learn about the world.

Originally Posted by Tim Minchin

Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? ....The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.
...... Janadele would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes
No. Couthness has nothing to do with it.
Do you believe unicorns exist? How would you go about proving that they don't exist?
The arrogant position is that which claims to know something to be true not only without evidence, but despite evidence to the contrary. The only way anything can be shown to be true is through humankind's finite senses. All else is baseless assertion.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Philosophic burden of proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

Skyrider, asking us to prove that god does not exist is appealing to ignorance.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

A laboratory is not an altar, any more than my kitchen sink is.
The scientific method is not theology any more than my butter chicken recipe is.
Stop being so silly.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

Then how are we to distinguish your religion from those false religions that are simply invented by humans? Why would a just god not clearly communicate the injustice of racism to its prophets?

Quote:

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

I'm sure everyone here applauds the LDS for its rejection of its long-held racist policies. But the point is that those policies were once strongly supported by those who claimed to be representatives God. How is this not consistent with Mormonism being just another imaginary construct of humans?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science.

The scientific method itself hasn't evolved. In fact, sticking to the same scientific method is what has produced results over the years.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Quote:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I suppose that one could say the LDS church claims that their method of getting information from God about church policies hasn't changed either: it's always been through God's direct revelation to a prophet.

Lots of members, including subsequent prophets, believed that Brigham Young's racist policies were direct from God. So one is stuck with the problem: either God was once racist but changed to be less so, or the prophet can't be relied on to get messages from God correct.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

We are in agreement.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Right, just like garages are the altars of automotive maintenance, and the Haynes manuals are its theology.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

But I wasn't making any ignorant proclamations about the 'discipline of faith', and you were talking out of turn about science.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

It's irrelevant to me what your scripture says. You can't say the same thing about science, because you're using one of it's products to compose and present your rejoinder.

BTW, I didn't call you uncouth, but if you continue to put words in my mouth, uncouth would be a very apt description of such behavior. Truculent would be another.

[mercy snip!]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology. .

Laboratories are not altars. They're work environments. The scientific method is not a theology. It's the best discipline going for understanding the physical universe and its laws.

If we can talk about contributions to the betterment of mankind on this planet, I'll stack the accomplishments of science against gazing at stones in a hat any day.

Quote:

Your finite senses seem to be picking up errant data.

That's why science depends on the peer review process.

[Empress]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

You ask a question based on a supposition not of my making.

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

The LDS church was supposedly brought back to earth by god b/c none of the other churches were correct. The LDS church claims it was set up by god with a pipeline to that perfect god through the living prophet, one of whom was Brigham Young, on record as being a rather horrible, racist man. Are you saying that god was perfect but racist in times past (an oxymoron, imo), but he has grown and he's perfect and non-racist now? I ask again, why follow a god that has shown itself to be a racist *******? Not to mention, not bothering to give the most basic of instructions to its righteous (ie: boiling water).

If your god really wasn't petty and racist once upon a time, why didn't he smite Young good and proper when he was making such revolting statements in god's name? Why doesn't this god ever do anything useful? What good is this god?

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

I assume that most of those who demand science-based answers from Janadele are atheists (not just critics of the LDS Church). That being the case, it seems to me that Janadele would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

Shifting the burden of proof. Naughty naughty. The proper way to start is with the null hypothesis: that is, gods do not exist, and change that hypothesis only with evidence. So far the amount of evidence for yours or anyone else's god, is a big ol' goose egg.

Faith by definition is belief without evidence. So yes, faith is folly, whether it appears arrogant to you or not. Every shred of evidence we have points to a wholly naturalistic world--no gods needed. And we certainly don't need gods that aren't going to bother helping out starving children, or explaining basic science like germ theory. We'll muddle through somehow without supernatural beings just as we have since mankind evolved. Your god is dead.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Your biggest critique against science is to say it is just like your religion?
Except, by your admission, is valuable, likely due to the fact that it yields quantifiable and useful results.