Split Thread: Science vs. faith

[epix]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.

Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

Quote:

One of the first proofs by contradiction is the following gem attributed to Euclid.

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by epix

The title matches two methods of investigation: faith and science.

Assuming that religion is a method (I don't know of any truth demonstrated by religion) I would say you have created a false dichotomy as you have left out other supernatural methods like astrology, psychic phenomenon, trot cards, etc., etc..

Two methods: Science and superstition.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Superstition is a belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any physical process linking the two events, such as astrology, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science.

Since most if not all religions are belief on supernatural causality let's just put then all into superstition.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by epix

Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

No.

Originally Posted by epix

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

That's simple maths. Of course it works. Probability says it will work in at least some circumstances just by chance. That is not "working", that's just happenstance.

Originally Posted by epix

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?

This forum can be as educational as it wants. The lack is your willingness to learn.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by epix

Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

What doe you mean "it works"? How does it work?

Quote:

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?

You won't learn to rely on superstition that's for damn sure.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Really? You will simply put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala"?

For real?

Originally Posted by epix

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

Maths is prayer? You must belong to a really weird church! This thread should be moved to the comedy forum.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?

It wasn't the ancients who didn't pray that made the advances in human knowledge.

[epix]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What doe you mean "it works"? How does it work?

How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)² = (G_O)² + (G_D)²

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by epix

How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)² = (G_O)² + (G_D)²

No no no no no no no. What the hell does that have to do with prayer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's not a prayer.

Quote:

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason...

That's a bald face lie. What I said was:

Originally Posted by RandFan

The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.

Of course the ancients could reason. Prayer was a waste of time but reason wasn't. It was reason that helped the ancients progress.

Quote:

...and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.

What on earth are you talking about? Math isn't prayer.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)² = (G_O)² + (G_D)²

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.

What!? You just scraped your way through the bottom of the barrel. Nobody said that the ancients could not reason.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What on earth are you talking about? Math isn't prayer.

Another epix fail.

[epix]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No no no no no no no. What the hell does that have to do with prayer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's not a prayer.

That's a bald face lie. What I said was:

Quote:

The ancients had prayer. It didn't help them much more than sucking their thumbs. Only through the application of reason and logic did we advance.

I never suspected that you would use inclusive "we." I'm always under impression when visiting here that reason and logic is a trademark of atheism.

Quote:

Of course the ancients could reason. Prayer was a waste of time but reason wasn't. It was reason that helped the ancients progress.

How do you know that prayer was a waste of time for the ancients? You were not there; you have absolutely no slightest idea what was going on back then. But there are manuscripts you can get a clue from.

Quote:

Porphyry also emphasizes Pythagoras' divine aspects and may be setting him up as a rival to Jesus (Iamblichus 1991, 14). These three third-century accounts of Pythagoras were in turn based on earlier sources, which are now lost.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

Why didn't the ancients drop all the praying when they could apply their ability to reason to the effect of realizing that prayer doesn't help?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

How do you know that prayer was a waste of time for the ancients?

Because there are no gods to pray to, therefore they were wasting their time. Archimedes did not spend his time on his knees burbling away to an imaginary being.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

Why didn't the ancients drop all the praying when they could apply their reason to the effect of realizing that prayer doesn't help?

Why don't modern believers in a religion do the same thing? For the same reasons as the ancients. Confirmation bias and the odd coincidence. When you say the ancients, do you include the ancient Greeks and Romans? Are you saying that their gods were real?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by epix

How do you know that prayer was a waste of time for the ancients? You were not there; you have absolutely no slightest idea what was going on back then. But there are manuscripts you can get a clue from.

Demonstrate that it works?

Quote:

Why didn't the ancients drop all the praying when they could apply their ability to reason to the effect of realizing that prayer doesn't help?

Why don't you? There is zero evidence that it works.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by epix

Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Huh? You are aware that
a) Euclid's Elements is the first application of the axiomatic method to mathematics;
b) It relies on rigorous application of logic;
c) Mathematics is neither religion nor science.

Originally Posted by epix

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

You're probably equally unaware of the literally hundreds of proofs for the Pythagorean theorem. Euclid gave one of them in the Elements.

Originally Posted by epix

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

Yeah, it works because mathematics works.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by epix

Let's see some of the useless ancient prayers:

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/...ontradict.html

Here is a well-known ancient prayer in a literal translation: The sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html

That prayer is used extensively even today and it works.

Well, I think I saw enough in this thread. Faith is regarded as a scientific method; the ancients couldn't think straight and so they had to pray all the time... What else am I going to learn in this "educational" forum?

The Pythagorean link is interesting, and I see it mentions that the Pythagoreans had prayers, but I could find no reference to a prayer that any specific theorem be true, nor any reference to this being a well known prayer nor any reference to translation, literal or not. I'm very tired and dizzy today, so perhaps I missed something in the text. But it sure looks as if you're making something up.

[epix]

Originally Posted by bruto

The Pythagorean link is interesting, and I see it mentions that the Pythagoreans had prayers, but I could find no reference to a prayer that any specific theorem be true, nor any reference to this being a well known prayer nor any reference to translation, literal or not. I'm very tired and dizzy today, so perhaps I missed something in the text. But it sure looks as if you're making something up.

The last portions of this thread have been attacked by the trolls and heavily edited, so it's better to see it walk into the waste basket. It should have been be tossed in there just by the virtue of its title that compares faith with science. Some folks, like the author of the OP, are not aware of the fact that faith is not a scientific method. But someone interpreted the title "Faith vs. Science" as "Faith in Science," meaning that faith contributes to scientific research, and that became the new topic.

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

In modern times, public acknowledgement of such belief is very rare. For example, the brilliant Indian mathematician Srinisava Ramanujan credited his analytic abilities to a deity.

Quote:

He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God.

Src: Wikipedia

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.

The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods.

Names please. And you cannot make discoveries in philosophy. Maths yes, but no gods were needed, only intelligence.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.

Do you know what the word ''autodidact'' means? Ramanujan thought up the equations, whether he attributed them to an imaginary being or not is neither here nor there. Asking you pertinent questions that you dodge is not trolling, by the way.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.

Name a period in history when everyone in the world believed in a god. There have always been atheists around. Also tell us more about these ancient forms of prayer.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by epix

I never suspected that you would use inclusive "we."

You're surprised at the use of "we" to describe the human race.

Which planet are you from, then?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by epix

The last portions of this thread have been attacked by the trolls and heavily edited, so it's better to see it walk into the waste basket. It should have been be tossed in there just by the virtue of its title that compares faith with science. Some folks, like the author of the OP, are not aware of the fact that faith is not a scientific method. But someone interpreted the title "Faith vs. Science" as "Faith in Science," meaning that faith contributes to scientific research, and that became the new topic.

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

In modern times, public acknowledgement of such belief is very rare. For example, the brilliant Indian mathematician Srinisava Ramanujan credited his analytic abilities to a deity.

Src: Wikipedia

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.

The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math. If he obtained a result it was a mathematical result, available for anyone who did the math to check without calling in any god.

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did. No doubt, as theists, and especially as theists who predate the current idiotic craze of believing that religious truth negates science, they attributed everything good to divine origin, and they may well have prayed for wisdom and guidance. They may even have credited their success to the gods. It does not, in any way, suggest that they did not do the math just like everyone else.

[epix]

Originally Posted by bruto

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math.

I didn't say that Ramanujan didn't do the math. Your interpretation of what I said is misconstrued, also because I didn't put the statement into the proper context. I would stick with a view of Ramanujan's mentor mathematician H.G. Hardy rather than yours.

Quote:

Freeman Dyson called Hardy not just an ordinary atheist (who does not believe in God) but a passionate atheist (one who considers God to be their personal enemy).

http://philosopedia.org/index.php/G._H._Hardy

Quote:

Ramanujan’s method of working even intrigued his Cambridge mentor, Dr Hardy, because the former used to highlight the spiritual factor in his discoveries that the latter, an atheist, could neither accept nor completely reject as pure ‘nonsense’. Dr Hardy, instead, quite happily let that aspect of the discoveries slip into the history of ‘unexplained’.

There were times, however, even Dr Hardy was forced to turn inwards when Ramanujan once famously said, “an equation has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.” Before coming to England, Ramanujan used to tell his Indian friends that goddess Namagiri, his family goddess, used to whisper the mathematical secrets into his ears even during his childhood, when asked to explain his brilliance at dealing with numbers.

Dr Hardy was convinced that Ramanujan was using a faculty other than human intelligence in producing wonders in the field of mathematics.

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/201...limpses-heaven

Quote:

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did.

I said that the ancients didn't pray the way Christians do. I never used any comparative like more or less. Some historians of mathematics speculated on the subject of religion in ancient mathematics, and so I adopted some of their views.
Ramanujan obviously didn't pray for a particular knowledge. If he did, he surely wondered about why Namagiri held back the Last Fermat Theorem. LOL.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by bruto

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God

No, he's right. It does 'kind of' make sense.

Here's how:-

1. It makes sense that everything that happens has a cause.

2. Ramanujan didn't receive formal training in mathematics, but something must have helped him gain that ability.

3. He doesn't have any rational explanation for what gave him that ability - therefore God!

It 'kind of makes sense' that God is responsible for anything we don't have a rational explanation for, because the alternative - that we just don't know - is unacceptable.

Make sense? Kind of...

[Cat Tale]

Geez, and all I wanted to know is who discovered one plus one is two! In math I never stood a prayer of a chance. Just wanted to say, great thread!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

3. He doesn't have any rational explanation for what gave him that ability - therefore God!

See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and The Math Gene by Devlin.

We evolved the ability to solve math problems. There is no mystery here.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by bruto

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math. If he obtained a result it was a mathematical result, available for anyone who did the math to check without calling in any god.

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did. No doubt, as theists, and especially as theists who predate the current idiotic craze of believing that religious truth negates science, they attributed everything good to divine origin, and they may well have prayed for wisdom and guidance. They may even have credited their success to the gods. It does not, in any way, suggest that they did not do the math just like everyone else.

There is no such thing as religious truth. No gods. Savvy?

[BenjaminTR]

Originally Posted by epix

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

Pythagoras was not primarily a mathematician or scientist, he was primarily known for his religious ideas. Though his name is attached to the famous theorem,

Quote:

There is evidence that he valued relationships between numbers such as those embodied in the so-called Pythagorean theorem, though it is not likely that he proved the theorem.

(From the very source you cite.). You can find fragments of quotes and teachings attributed to him, like a prohibition against eating beans, assigning random numbers to stuff (I think justice was 4), and other ideas about cosmology.

In other words, as far as I can tell, nothing about him helps your case that prayer leads to advancements.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by dafydd

There is no such thing as religious truth. No gods. Savvy?

Quick writing but I sort of thought the conjunction of the phrase "idiotic craze" with "religious truth" might have sufficed in conveying my meaning of "their notion of religious truth."

[epix]

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR

In other words, as far as I can tell, nothing about him helps your case that prayer leads to advancements.

Here we go once again: When I say that the ancient didn't pray the way Christians do, then my statement is twisted to a malform that only intolerant religion haters can come up with. There is no evidence of me saying that prayer leads to advancements in science, as much as there is no evidence that Jews are some subhuman species. There is evidence of me saying that faith is not a scientific method and therefore the title of this thread doesn't make sense. Not that I would be surprised by that.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by epix

How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)² = (G_O)² + (G_D)²

Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.

What makes you think Pythagoras spoke English?

[Gawdzilla]

If you take things on faith, you're not doing science.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by RandFan

See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and The Math Gene by Devlin.

We evolved the ability to solve math problems. There is no mystery here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriqu...t_species.html

The presenter puts forward some interesting ideas about the "sexy nerd" and evolution here. I don't buy all his points right now but it seems that the ability to do math in a world run by technology is a selective pressure.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by epix

Here we go once again: When I say that the ancient didn't pray the way Christians do, then my statement is twisted to a malform that only intolerant religion haters can come up with. There is no evidence of me saying that prayer leads to advancements in science, as much as there is no evidence that Jews are some subhuman species. There is evidence of me saying that faith is not a scientific method and therefore the title of this thread doesn't make sense. Not that I would be surprised by that.

Malform is a verb, not a noun. There is no such thing as a malform. I don't hate religion but do hate the horrid things that have been done in the name of religion. The world would be a saner place without this primitive superstition.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by pakeha

What makes you think Pythagoras spoke English?

Having no education in maths and history?

[skyrider44]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No it hasn't been answered. What did Brigham Young mean by "black skin" and a "flat nose"? What about all of the scriptures that reference "black skin", why do they do that if it has nothing to do with skin color.

This is a skeptics site not get preached to by a Mormon site. If you want to express your views without critical scrutiny then you've come to the wrong place.

You are NOT answering questions in any meaningful way.

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.

[Empress]

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.

Who here is claiming that scientists are infallible? That's the great thing about the scientific method. As knowledge increases old ideas that are proven to be non-factual are tossed aside and our understanding of the natural world improves. I've never heard anyone say that evolution is correct, for example because Darwin says so. Evolution is correct because it's an established fact, proven over multiple scientific disciplines.

Contrast that with your church, which claims a direct line to god, and was only brought forth into the world b/c all the other churches were wrong. Why can't your church get it right if you're personally led by a perfect god? Sounds like you know your god is a moron, but want to excuse him and his fallible prophets for not being perfect. If your god isn't perfect--and being a racist ******* certainly qualifies as imperfect--then why follow him?

[tsig]

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.

So you agree that your church was wrong then but you think it's right now.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses.

To characterize Young's proclamations as unfortunate is, well, unfortunate.

Quote:

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.

It is good for the Church to recognizes its faults and moves to correct them. I am not sure who is this "we" of which you speak, though. Janadele clearly does not agree with you. For that matter, where has the Church said explicitly that Brigham Young, for example, was wrong?

Quote:

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.

False analogy much? This is absolute rubbish on so many levels. None of those individuals were ever anointed as the official spokesperson for an inerrant God. None were deemed to speak in holy scripture of Science. Moreover, Science is well understood to be fallible. It makes mistakes, readily admits them, corrects them, and moves on. Science doesn't come with its own Articles of Faith that deny the very position you are claiming for the Church, above.

Quote:

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.

The dwelling on the statements from the likes of the bigoted scumbag, Brigham Young, is because upstanding Mormons the likes of Janadele accept them as divinely inspired doctrine.

If the statements from the likes of the bigoted scumbag, Brigham Young, in his role as Prophet aren't to be taken as divinely inspired doctrine, that doesn't leave much for the Church's foundation.