Oh, uh, just FYI that *really* long post of mine on page 3 had a very important link that wasn't working. It works now. I recommend the read.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: also, a man only knows joy after his fall. how about the ladies? do they fall? do they know joy? is this part of the story?
Generally, "man" and "mankind" both equally relate to the ladies. I would have to say it's derivitive of "human" not "male."
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that usage of man was in the sense of, like, all mankind. So pretty much it is men and women. Kinda like "Since the dawn of Man...." That sort of thing. Not very PC, but then scripture isn't the most PC collection of writings around.
Averaging in the Positive, yes. Reason: admiration of your wit. Negative: resulting from too much confusion and the occasional rude confrontiveness. But that doesn't entirely detract from me enjoying and being entertained by your posts.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
the "inclusivity" rationale is nice. even kinda 'romatically' engaging. but it seems very lopsided. not fair. not the truth. or, not the fully realizible (sp) truth.
posted
Okay, this was several pages ago and has since gotten lost in the shuffle, but I feel I must defend myself against this:
quote:Maybe I've got my definition wrong, but isn't an agnostic someone who is not sure what they believe?
No. Not by definition, anyway. An agnostic, roughly speaking, is someone who believes that humanity does not know whether there is a God. Of course, agnosticism isn't a doctrine, so it will mean different things to different people. We have no organization to tell us what to believe and what not to believe, so I'll grant that there can be a lot of variation in the belief systems of agnostics. But there is nothing in the definition whatsoever that implies that we don't know what we believe. The word 'agnostic' comes from the Greek for 'not knowing', but what we don't know is whether God exists. That doesn't mean we can't devise our own belief systems and hold to them.
For my part, I have my own belief system, built from years of thinking and studying and asking questions. I have my own beliefs about how the universe works, how humanity works, and what happens to us after we die. God plays no role in my beliefs, simply because I've never seen any credible evidence that He exists. Which is not to say that "God doesn't exist" is one of my beliefs. It isn't. He may well exist, for all I know, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that. I've just never encountered any evidence that would convince me thus far.
It's also worth pointing out that I hold my beliefs firmly enough to act as though my beliefs are true. I live my life assuming that my beliefs are accurate, just as a religious person would. I'm not fanatical about it, of course. I like to think I keep an open enough mind that if valid evidence proving that a particular belief of mine were false, I'd change my belief instead of calling the person presenting the evidence a liar. But that doesn't mean I don't believe what I believe now. I know what I believe in, and I hold to it unless better evidence is presented.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Leave for a couple days (weekend), and come back to five pages of really interesting reading! Thanks for giving me something interesting for my Monday morning.....
quote:I believe Protestants think Catholics have it wrong because Catholics believe Mary can act as an intercessor between them and God. Protestants dont think Mary has this power.
Catholics simply believe that the dead can pray for the living. Just as many people on this forum have asked people here to pray for them about something, Catholics believe it is appropriate to ask Mary to pray for us.
quote:I think they also dislike large showy cathedrals.
Check out St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey sometime. You're lumping a very diverse group into a single viewpoint.
quote:I dont know why Catholics beleive Protestants have it wrong.
There are myriad issues Protestants disagree with Catholics on and vice-versa. Many of these issues also spark disagreement amongst Protestants.
The proper relation of Scripture and traditions, the authority of the Pope as successor to St. Peter, and the nature of Eucharist are the start of a pretty hefty list.
Most Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church have a much higher level of agreement with each other than either do with the LDS Church.
posted
Dagonee:"Most Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church have a much higher level of agreement with each other than either do with the LDS Church."
I'm not sure that's true. I just think that there are a handful of key doctrines that are kind of like the issue of abortion is in politics. They're deal-breakers. In other words, it doesn't matter how many other things they agree on, there are a handful of specific differences that are seen as TOO big and important just on their own.
It seems to me that Protestantism and Catholicism tend to have myriad small differences, but fewer of them are "deal-breaker" differences.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
There was a statement early of how Protestants and Muslims are closer with their ideas of God than Protestants and LDS. Viewed from one perspective (God is not bound by anything, including his own laws), then yes. Viewed from another (Jesus is the son of God), then no.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you count the number of differences, this may be the case (although just deciding how many differences there are in beliefs on Communion would be challenging).
But if you picture the beliefs as having "size" of some kind (importance, centrality, whatever), then I think my original statement still stands. I mean, the understanding of who God is is pretty central to things, no?
posted
Yes, of course. Joseph Smith said the same thing.
But even assigning importance here is subjective. I mean, Jesus' sacrifice and role as the son of God is fairly important.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not• seen, which are true."
I would leave off the last codicil, as it's perfectly possible to have faith in things which are not true.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since (in Mormon theology, at least) faith is a gift from God, and God does not give evil gifts, it is impossible to have faith in something that is not true.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what is true and what isn't. Believers have faith they know what is true and lunatics are people without the true faith which is what the believers have. Of course, the lunatics are thinking the same thing about the true believers, albeit with different titles.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager - we won't really know who wins until it's too late to do anything about it.
-Trevor
Edit: PSI, Scott - I am not trying to jump on your belief system. I am trying to look at the subject from an impartial, analytical view.
Which, sadly, doesn't always manifest itself in my posts.
quote: Since (in Mormon theology, at least) faith is a gift from God, and God does not give evil gifts, it is impossible to have faith in something that is not true.
That doesn't explain people that have faith in things that are contradictory to your own belief system.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, PSI. I think there is an LDS lexicon in which "faith" includes "in truth", but I by no means restrict all definitions of faith to that one.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, of course, there are those of us who define faith not as belief but as priority. What you have “faith in” has nothing to do with what you believe exists, it has to do with what you make the ultimate priority of your life.
posted
The aspect of faith that I like to emphasize is not so much that it is based on truth but that it is a belief that motivates one to action. So in my mind, faith must always include works. If it does not, it is belief, not faith.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word "faith" seems to have as many definitions as the word "love", and that makes it really hard to communicate in words about either one.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who is religious and also a scientist, I saw something neat in this thread. People with a wide variety of worldviews all hold the truth to be sacred. Because the truth is sacred, then the means they know of approaching the truth also partakes of that sanctity. So beverly, in trying to point out to fallow how she feels about his trash-talking of religion, trash-talks science and offends fallow.
At least that's what it looked like to me. But to me it seems that we serve the same God, the Truth. "I am the Way and the Truth and the Light." Doing Science is also serving God.
To scientists, too, I want to say that science knows it is incomplete. Like a Goedelian formal system, to gain in precision it willingly gives up completeness. Even if we can't understand God in a scientific sense of knowledge, that doesn't mean there is no knowledge available to us at all. Religion is the empirical knowledge stage. The stage that the makers of the great Samarai swords were in steelmaking, when they coded their understanding in prayers and rituals. It is the mysterious beginnings of knowlege, the place outside science where new hypotheses come from.
Just because a holy seer can be mistaken about the thermonuclear nature of the stars does not mean such a person doesn't know more than me about many things, for instance how one should live this weird incredible mystery called life.
Religion vs. Science is a false dichotomy. Both seek the Truth.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, TM and fallow should cool it down several degrees. They are acting like chums on a playground trying to one up each other's rudeness, although there doesn't seem to be any actual argument.
Now for some comments. This might have been dropped, but here it goes . . .
I don't believe that "Mother in Heaven" is a basic belief for LDS Theology. Don't get me wrong. I didn't say it wasn't a belief, just not a very important one compared to others. In fact, its not only hardly explicit, it is mostly derived. The notion of a Mother in Heaven is implied more than stated.
My point is not to reject the doctrine, as I believe it does exist as such. However, the only reason there is such an idea is because many pieces of the gospel "puzzle" wouldn't make sense without coming to the conclusion. That, by the way, is why I don't think Mormons have done or will allow much to be done with the idea of the feminine God. Mother in Heaven is theologically much like background noise to other more explicit issues. She "comes out" when there is no way of explaining a concept without her missing presence.
Why then does God not give more information about Mother in Heaven? I believe that is because its not in "the Plan" that she plays an open part. God has given very specific information about worship, and she is not part of that order. Other than that, I don't think a reason is given -- no matter how many justifications of the situation are explained. Now, I can speculate that it is out of respect, or that when you speak of God you are speaking of both Mother and Father in Heaven, or there might be multiple mothers. To be honest with myself at this time, it is one of those things that I am forced to say, "I don't know. Ask God."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
We are not chums and I'll match rudeness for rudeness. I have this dislike for backing down in the face of challenge. Call it a quirk. Be that as it may, I think Fallows and I are done for the thread.
As to the other - fair enough. As I noted before, certain nuances are not given to explanation as others might be. It would be asking why do we describe dieties with the word "god" and not call them "tomatos?" I happen to like a slice of God on my chicken sandwich, thanks. Why did humanity form language in _this_ fashion and not that fashion? Why does the American South have this twang while Northern America has its own accent?
If you want to question why Joseph Smith described it that way - I don't know. Did he have ulterior motives? Was this a massive product of his fantasy? Possibly. Or maybe God did reveal himself and this is part of His grand plan. Equally possible.
Why is water wet? Why don't we drink liquid oxygen instead of breathing it in gaseous form? I honestly don't know and I could rationalize it as "that's not how life evolved on this planet" or "well, God liked this particular model." Maybe on another planet, they do drink liquid oxygen and don't breathe.
posted
Oh, just to clarify, my intention was not so much to trash-talk science as to make a point. It bugs me when atheists and agnostics look at believers as delusional and science as the only "right" way to come to know anything. They seem to think that if you believe in God, there is something wrong with you.
True, there are plenty of believers who are not adept at rational thought. But there are also plenty of believers that are. They are intelligent, rational people, and yet they still believe. So there must be more to it than that.
So for the sake of making a point, I attacked science. It is not an accurate reflection of my actual feelings on the subject.
Edit: After re-reading ak's post, I am tempted to think this post of mine is redundant.
posted
Occasional, I am in agreeance with you. I am not particularly comfortable talking about something as doctrinal that is not explicit, but I did want to try to answer the question posed.
I'm a sucker for satisfying curiousity, being the intensely curious creature I am myself. As long as the curiousity is respectful.
posted
Snicker. Actually, you made some very valid points regarding Science, Faith and Religion.
I am willing to concede that I take it on Faith that oxygen molecules exist. I also believe that if I choose to pursue the matter, I can find oxygen molecules on my own. And I tend to take current theories regarding the Universe much the same way I hold most religions - "Really? Cool. Now prove it."
Science is not an end-all, be-all philosophy in and of itself. It can be argued that Science is as much a study into the mind of God as philosophy or even theology.
However, my opinion on Religion differs in that I do think it's delusional. I can't prove it doesn't exist, which as we've noted before, lack of proof doesn't disprove the idea. But some sort of proof would be nice before I commit myself to this philosophy.
Otherwise, I might as well sacrifice a chicken to my computer in the hopes it makes the Blue Screen of Death go away. Yum - chicken fingers.
I respect your right to have Faith in something that is important to you and I also concede that the "proof" of faith may be such that one must believe in order to receive that proof.
However, from my perspective and I mean no personal offense, but there is precious little difference between your Faith and any other group - be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Wiccan or Barnian.
posted
"It bugs me when atheists and agnostics look at believers as delusional and science as the only 'right' way to come to know anything."
The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something. Now, you can require less evidence of something before you choose to believe it, but you're still going to base your belief on SOMETHING empirical, some sort of observation on which you've hung a hypothesis; to do otherwise, I submit, is something that we would all clearly regard as lunacy. (In fact, that's a fair definition of genuine raving insanity: holding a belief for no reason whatsoever.)
Agnostics and atheists, then, simply believe that the standard of proof on which most believers rely is insufficiently rigorous to rule out the more likely possibilities of self-delusion and groupthink. And believers, who as a general rule believe that insufficient evidence is a CONDITION of their faith, basically have to admit that this evidence is insufficient to everyone except themselves.
I see no way past this, so you're probably going to have to learn to shrug it off.
quote:"It bugs me when atheists and agnostics look at believers as delusional and science as the only 'right' way to come to know anything."
The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.
Well there's a significant difference between "science" and "scientific method". Other than that though, I agree with you, logic is the only reason anyone believes anything, even if the logic is simply "my preacher told me so". I think every Thiest on this board has a much stronger logical argument backing up their belief than that, it's just that the logic mostly eminates from a personal experience that not all share. If you saw God and He told you which religion was right then it wouldn't take a whole lot of logic to have faith in that religion, but it wouldn't be science either, because you couldn't validate your experience to anyone else, and thus your faith would be based on the logical extrapolation of an experience, but it would not be shared by others. I think most of the at least the Christians on this board (and probably most Thiests, but I'm overstepping my bounds enough just speaking of Christians ) have had a smilar experience, just not of the same magnitude. Non-believers either haven't had that experience, or have redpudiated it as un-true (which is also perfectly logical, I'm not saying ti had to have come from God, just that the experience existed that could've come from God) and thus don't feel it's been adequatly proved to them. That's why arguing the veracity of a faith normally doesn't work, someone will point to their personal experiences and the other person will say they haven't had those experiences and then... that's pretty much it.
quote:The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.
Would you be willing to revise that statement along the lines of the scientific method being the only way to know emperically measurable things, or facts about material reality, or something like that?
Because we also use the word "know" to mean things that I can't figure out how we could use the scientific method for. I know I love my parents, I know sunsets are beautiful, etc. It's a subjective form of "knowing," but I don't think I'm willing to not use the word "know" for it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.
No way. Most of the knowledge that any given human being holds was NOT gained by the scientific method. Most of what you or I or any of us knows was taught to us by someone, whether orally or by reading a book or what have you. We each take it on faith that what we were taught is correct. We may put more belief in something if the person teaching has a PhD or MD etc after their name, but even so the message such people disseminate is by no means inherently more valuable than a competing idea.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agnostics and atheists, then, simply believe that the standard of proof on which most believers rely is insufficiently rigorous to rule out the more likely possibilities of self-delusion and groupthink.
Of course, the greater likelihood of "delusion and groupthink" is an utterly unfounded postulate.
Dagonee Edit: And what dkw said - the measurability bit was going to be the crux of this post, but she said it first.
posted
Yeah, science would be much better off if we all weren't so caught up in narratives. Too many dang words floating around.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have this dislike for backing down in the face of challenge. Call it a quirk
I'll be happy to call it a common denominator of Hatrack folks, Trevor. I guess there is a reason you belong here.
My view on science is I take it on faith until such time as I have access to a mass spectrometer.
P.S. I don't mean to impugn anyone's sincerity here, but if someone says "know" with respect to a testimony of Jesus Christ, that would mean to me that they have actually seen his face. This is a possibility promised in the scriptures. But I think a lot of people use "know" to imitate folks they respected.
posted
Jacare, that's just scientific method by indirection.
Which is fraught with its own perils (the Telephone Game, anyone?). It seems you are trying to squash the idea of learning "How" something is with the method to communicate "How" something is. In English (and probably most languages) these two ideas are often conflated in everyday speech, but that doesn't mean they aren't separate ideas. Which is important for this conversation.
quote: The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.
Heh. You mean like knowing there are no particles smaller than an atom? Or the universality of relativity? Oh wait, they were wrong weren't they? You can know that you are observing something, and you can make educated guesses about it, but that's about it. You can't really *know* anything from your observations beyond what you are observing and predicting that if you let go of the rock again it will probably fall to the ground.
All I have to do is take a peek at quantum theories to be blown away at how little science is able to truly "know".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's unfair to impugn (sp?) science with examples of scientific misunderstandings that have been corrected by science. As a system, it contains within it the means for its own correction.
I just think it's best to understand it's limitations. To do otherwise makes it less useful to us.
Dagonee Edit: As for quantum theories, quantum mechanics is the most precise predictive theory to date (14 significant digits) as well as one of the most mind-bogglingly useful. The problem I see with it is that the math, which has been borne out time and time again, doesn't suggest an elegant physical model as Relativity does. This means it's useful (predictive), but not descriptive.
posted
Jacare -- believing something because someone told it to you is also part of the scientific method. You are reaching a logical conclusion based on certain premises and observations. Example: "I believe my teacher is correct about this theorem because he is an accredited math teacher, and I have previously followed a logical train of thought that has led me to accept that such accreditation usually results in satisfactorily trained teachers. Ergo, when my teacher tells me something, even if I cannot personally verify this statement on my own at the present time, I am willing to accept it as truth because I have logically come to trust the source." There's nothing illogical about this, and it's perfectly in keeping with the scientific principles; where illogic creeps in is the obvious flaw of this line of thinking: trusting in a source of information on a given subject even if you have no reason to do so, or demonstrable evidence that you should not. (In other words, trusting your pastor on a matter of biology would not be particularly logical, unless you had some reason to believe that pastor was an authority on the subject.)
------
Dana, I would suggest that your use of "know" in the cases you've described -- you know you love your parents, you know sunsets are pretty -- is practically tautological. You know you love your parents because you have compared your feelings for your parents with the definition you have accepted for the word "love." You do NOT know that you love your parents in an empirical sense, in which the love you feel is the same "love" felt by everyone else for THEIR parents, because it's not a measurable attribute. But we can look at your behavior and your self-assessment to determine if these appear to match up with the commonly-accepted definition of "love," and in this way approach something resembling logic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the greater likelihood of 'delusion and groupthink' is an utterly unfounded postulate."
While it's certainly a postulate, I wouldn't call it "utterly unfounded." Even if you grant that one out of the thousands of religions on this planet is true, that means the vast majority of people who believe they have received some communication from God are in fact self-delusional. The only other logical possibility is that God is in fact communicating with people but giving them different and contradictory messages, in which all these people ARE correct in their perceptions but God Himself is nothing like they believe Him to be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
