Is Mormon discussion more of a anti Mormon forum

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Is Mormon discussion more of a anti Mormon forum

Post by _DrW »

honorentheos wrote:The challenge is that no one - not the religionist, not the scientist - knows that they have something absolutely right rather than are merely fortunate in having certain effects occur after certain causes that they have misdiagnosed as far as the relationship is concerned. The benefit the scientist has over the religionist is that the culture surrounding science and the application of the scientific method reduces the probability of human bias but it doesn't provide unique access to objective reality like some people seem to imagine it does.

No argument here. It's a matter of degree, in my opinion. Science may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better basis on which to form a worldview than the wholly unfounded belief of religion.
honorentheos wrote:Skepticism. It's the only justifiable position.

The best way to proceed, as far as I can tell, would be based on established science (no good reason to be skeptical of gravity or evolution) with a dose of healthy skepticism toward emerging science (as in some branches of theoretical physics), a good grounding in math and logic (helps protect against endorsement of religious nonsense), some understanding of philosophy, and avoidance of religion as anything more than an aspect of history, a cultural pass time, or casual entertainment.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Is Mormon discussion more of a anti Mormon forum

Post by _spotlight »

DrW wrote:The best way to proceed, as far as I can tell, would be based on established science (no good reason to be skeptical of gravity or evolution) with a dose of healthy skepticism toward emerging science (as in some branches of theoretical physics), a good grounding in math and logic (helps protect against endorsement of religious nonsense), some understanding of philosophy, and avoidance of religion as anything more than an aspect of history, a cultural pass time, or casual entertainment.

Just like to add that there is a lot of consilience to be found in independent branches of science that taken together build a powerful argument that supports a scientific world view. The metaphysical aspect may always remain up for grabs as in the difference between Newton vs Einstein vs whatever ends up combining QM with gravitation but the predictions are in line with one another. There is something there that is real that the models actually are sketching out. The assumption is that as we build models that take into account more and more from new discoveries about nature (that falsify older models and unite distinct laws of physics into fewer unified laws) that the metaphysics, or Kuhn's "paradigm shift", behind those models will approach reality in the limit.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Is Mormon discussion more of a anti Mormon forum

Post by _honorentheos »

DrW wrote:
honorentheos wrote:The challenge is that no one - not the religionist, not the scientist - knows that they have something absolutely right rather than are merely fortunate in having certain effects occur after certain causes that they have misdiagnosed as far as the relationship is concerned. The benefit the scientist has over the religionist is that the culture surrounding science and the application of the scientific method reduces the probability of human bias but it doesn't provide unique access to objective reality like some people seem to imagine it does.

No argument here. It's a matter of degree, in my opinion. Science may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better basis on which to form a worldview than the wholly unfounded belief of religion.

This position assumes religion answering the questions of how the world appears to be, which you and I would absolutely agree is the domain of the sciences. No argument from me that religion has a miserable track record on many questions related to the nature of the universe and it's operations as best as we seem to understand them today.

Science is not proven to have meaningful things to say about "ought" just yet, though who knows what neuroscience may someday discover. And these discussions often seem to approach the same territory as that explained by Hume regarding the "Is/Ought" problem. We aren't just looking at method but making statements that extend science beyond what it really has yet proven is definable through the scientific method. One makes grave errors when they extend the obvious evidence for evolutionary theory into arguments that science can tell us what we need to know about ethics or social/moral issues so other domains are obsolete or inferior when it comes to any question that may be asked.

You and I will probably never see eye to eye on these issues because for all your enthusiasm for science it has the language and zeal of the zealot. Not a fan of zealotry. The mental illness comment, even after it was pointed out was misrepresenting the data it was based on, is an example of why. In a sense, we share vastly more in our views than we contest, yet there is a real ethical issue behind this area of disagreement that makes it bigger than just the questions of how much we disagree. So, there's a bit of irony in the fact our issues lie over questions of ought ("How ought we to engage with those who have a religious worldview?" "How ought we to represent our own worldview when engaging with others in public debate?", etc.) where not only science but it's zealous defense are up for debate here.

Dr W wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Skepticism. It's the only justifiable position.

The best way to proceed, as far as I can tell, would be based on established science (no good reason to be skeptical of gravity or evolution) with a dose of healthy skepticism toward emerging science (as in some branches of theoretical physics), a good grounding in math and logic (helps protect against endorsement of religious nonsense), some understanding of philosophy, and avoidance of religion as anything more than an aspect of history, a cultural pass time, or casual entertainment.

Skepticism is the lifeblood of science, and the suppression of skepticism is inherent in the dangers posed by religion in particular that of the fundamentalist kind. A healthy dose of skepticism towards everything seems inherently healthy and justified. If by skepticism one only means radical skepticism that rejects outright any and all explaination for anything then we'd be in agreement. But that's a rather binary way to define skepticism. If one can't allow that one may be wrong, and allow this to temper their sense of innate rightness in combination with a healthy degree of respect for one's fellows that extends to their worldviews as held, then again we're not going to find agreement.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Is Mormon discussion more of a anti Mormon forum

Post by _DrW »

honorentheos wrote:You and I will probably never see eye to eye on these issues because for all your enthusiasm for science it has the language and zeal of the zealot.

My "enthusiasm" for science, or more generally secularism, is born of a lot of experience with a lot of religions and a lot of religionists. Some of the more successful believers with whom I have associated had an uncanny ability to compartmentalize their unfounded beliefs as "traditions", and often more specifically "the traditions of our fathers". These beliefs went into that box, and generally stayed there.

This was especially the case when working in the Islamic Middle East. One encounters two broad classes of people there, namely; those who take a more scientific (logic and reason founded, fact oriented) approach to their lives and the world, (and with whom I greatly enjoyed working), and those for whom religion was paramount, even if otherwise well educated.

The abject ignorance of supposedly well educated Muslims when it comes to understanding how the world works, and their willingness to readily endorse the latest fantasy explanation preached by their Imam, makes one nervous about what might well happen when these faithful folks become involved in populist political movements. Recent history has shown such concerns to be well founded.
honorentheos wrote: Not a fan of zealotry.

I do not consider myself a zealot. I don't go around knocking on doors (like Mormon missionaries) to spread the glad news of science to those who suffer in disbelief.

On the other hand, I will readily admit to having little patience with religious nonsense. I remain very respectful of the religion of others, even when they overtly try to convince me of the benefits or validity of their beliefs or point of view. At that point, however, they are likely to be asked a few fair questions regarding their unfounded beliefs.

While this general approach has no doubt cost a few potential friends, it has certainly, over time, engendered respect - even from religionists, including active Mormon friends and colleagues. I count among my long time friends and colleagues former Bishops, former Stake Presidents, and even a former Mission President.

IMHO, just getting to Kum ba yah is not a very worthwhile life goal.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Post Reply