quote: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.
How do we determine a scientist is worthy of our trust? Because a piece of paper or popularity?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
-Bok
No, Bok- with reference to any given bit of knowledge you HOPE it is the indirect scientific method, but really, do you have any proof that it is? For many things the proof may be "out there" ie you could go to school or read scientific journals, perform the experiment yourself and then really know, but since people only do that for a limited subset of knowledge it is safe to say that the vast majority of what a person knows is simply authoritarian statements taken on faith.
If we leave the individual aside and take humanity as a whole (what I assume you are doing) then Tom's statement still doesn't hold up. WIth reference to things scientific like how electricity works or how many planets there are etc, yeah, the scientific method will buy you that. But what about the equally important knowledge about say, how to raise children, or how to build a trusting relationship. The scientific method has nothing to say with regards to these pressing human issues.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But what about the equally important knowledge about say, how to raise children, or how to build a trusting relationship. The scientific method has nothing to say with regards to these pressing human issues."
Are you telling me that people who are qualified to give advice on how to raise children or build a trusting relationship do not base this advice on hypotheses built on their observations and experiences? And that these hypotheses, when taken to heart by others and tested on their own children and relationships, are not vetted for accuracy?
While things like this are certainly "squishy" science -- if only because it's harder to control all the variables -- they're still knowledge obtained through science.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think that was my point. We use the word “know” in too many different ways to be able to say that one method is the only way to know something without any qualifiers on what we mean by “know.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, yes, science is a self correcting system. But at what point to we become sure that science has given us an accurate depiction of THE UNIVERSE AS IT REALLY IS?
Speaking strictly logically, science is not the most efficient method of discovering truth. The most efficient method is revelation from God. If God does not exist, then it is not an option.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. See, I can't help thinking that this is a linguistic flaw and not in fact a contrary argument. If the word "know" is misused in confusing ways, that's not exactly a contradiction.
-----
"The most efficient method is revelation from God."
Bev, even then, God is merely a mechanism by which scientific knowledge can be obtained. He's the ultiamte trustworthy source, but is still a scientific source. It's just like trusting a pastor, only with a bit more oomph.
quote: 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.)
Sorry, I disagree. The scientific method is as follows:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
In accepting second-hand knowledge you certainly don't do step 4 and you probably don't do any of the other steps either. What you do is trust that the source of your information has properly gone through those steps.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What you do is trust that the source of your information has properly gone through those steps."
Yes. But the great thing about actually basing your belief on science is this: if for some reason you eventually conclude that your source was flawed, you can pick another source or do the experiment yourself and expect to get valid data. There's nothing inherently wrong or unscientific about trusting a source, provided you are willing to withdraw that trust when necessary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you telling me that people who are qualified to give advice on how to raise children or build a trusting relationship do not base this advice on hypotheses built on their observations and experiences? And that these hypotheses, when taken to heart by others and tested on their own children and relationships, are not vetted for accuracy?
Yes. That is what I am saying. People such as marriage counselors and what have you may make observations based on a broad range of data, but that does not guarantee that their conclusions are even applicable in any given individual case. In terms of the method, they lack the ability to do step #3.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes. But the great thing about actually basing your belief on science is this: if for some reason you eventually conclude that your source was flawed, you can pick another source or do the experiment yourself and expect to get valid data. There's nothing inherently wrong or unscientific about trusting a source, provided you are willing to withdraw that trust when necessary.
Yeah, but the fact remains that the vast amount of things that we think we know is really just stuff we heard. Hence the scientific method is clearly not the only way to gain knowledge.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hence the scientific method is clearly not the only way to gain knowledge."
Ah. I see the problem. You're using the word "knowledge" incorrectly.
The scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge. There are, however, lots of ways to gain belief.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, the reason step 4 is omitted is usually for efficiency's sake. If we had to test whether gravity and friction were still working before driving to the grocery store, that'd be rather unweildy.
The thing IS, however, that if you wanted to, you COULD test it, at any given moment, to assuage your worry. And, depending on the equipment used, you'd be able to measure the previous observations as true to some certainty value.
In my opinion, if religious people were truly honest on this point, I think, they would have to admit that their faith experiences could be some sort of mental state, or could be a demon in disguise, or some other non-particular-faith-they-believe-in explanation. Appealling to their own scripture to prove that they were not is a fairly well known fallacy. It's a tautology.
That they believe what they believe is because they choose to, every moment of their existence, implicitly, by the way the rest of us can "measure" by their interactions with us.
quote:Dag, yes, science is a self correcting system. But at what point to we become sure that science has given us an accurate depiction of THE UNIVERSE AS IT REALLY IS?
Actually, it can't ever give an accurate depiction of the universe as it really is. We can know the current position or the current velocity of parts of it to whatever precision our instruments allow, but we can't know both.
Even without this, I think science can't tell us the really important things about the universe. If there's a God as described in the Judeo-Christian tradition(which I believe there is), nothing can be more important than knowing that he exists and what he wants of us. And science can't tell us that. Nor does it purport to.
I just don't think there's a conflict between science and religion.
posted
I am beginning to think that Tom Davidson has as much faith as many believers do. While you claim not to be athiest, you are pretty sure that God does not exist. Believers are pretty sure that God does exist. All act in accordance with those beliefs.
See my definition of faith: Belief that results in action in accordance with that belief.
So we can't know anything for sure. Then all our "knowledge" is just varying levels of belief and faith which we act in accordance with.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, well - I've never claimed to know anything Bev.
But seriously - we come back to the problem of: "How do we accept the revelation of someone who we can't confirm or deny actually exists?"
With Science, we at least have the option of discovering knowledge for ourselves. Most of us will trust the lexicon of human knowledge as it has been garnered by the rest of Humanity instead of individually re-testing each "fact" to test its veracity and accuracy.
By contrast, the interpretation and understanding of revelation or Faith is highly subjective and individual experience and cannot be replicated or duplicated by the next person to come along.
-Trevor
P.S. I will stop repeating what others have said - I promise.
Edit 1: Yes Bev - Athiests have just as much Faith or Belief as the religious folk do. They choose a position without fact or proof, just as much as the believers do. Tom's just a True Believer of a different sort.
In fact, the agnostics are the only honest ones because we admit we don't know and are, for the most part, ok with that.
posted
I also think that because the LDS/Mormon canon is "open" to further revelation, things about it can change. So that makes it a bit like the refinement of science. In the same way the Protestants and Muslims believe in the same God.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah. I see the problem. You're using the word "knowledge" incorrectly.
The scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge. There are, however, lots of ways to gain belief.
As to the first part- fine, if you want to define knowledge that way then that is OK. However, your assertion is still not so. What about a phenomenon which is observed only a single time (the hypothetical big bang for instance)? You may be able to give the proper explanation, you may have predictive power but you sure can't verify it by experimentation. That means that while it is possible to know everything there is to know about it you still didn't gain that knowledge via the scientific method.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"While you claim not to be athiest, you are pretty sure that God does not exist."
Nope. I'm just pretty sure that God as He's been described by the world's major religions does not exist. Bt, as has been pointed out before, I could easily be wrong. Of course, in that case, I'd expect an acceptable explanation of His behavior before I'd consider bending the knee.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The thing IS, however, that if you wanted to, you COULD test it, at any given moment, to assuage your worry. And, depending on the equipment used, you'd be able to measure the previous observations as true to some certainty value.
I addressed this somewhat in my last post. There are things which cannot be confirmed, or which can be confirmed only with great difficulty.
As to the rest of your post- I agree, but your assertion is so for everyone, not just the religious.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That means that while it is possible to know everything there is to know about it you still didn't gain that knowledge via the scientific method."
In the case you've cited, Jacare, I would argue that you are possessed of knowledge gained through the scientific method, but are unable to pass on that knowledge in a similar way. Which is why theories exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Trevor, you might be interested in reading Alma 32 . Start at verse 21. It talks about applying the scientific method to revelation from God. The evidence is technically empirical, but not as tangible as most of the basis for science.
I'm not expecting it to be all that impressive to you, just interesting.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I didn't say the possibility of delusion was unfounded, I said the greater likelihood of delusion was unfounded. Small but important difference.
There's lots of other possibilities. Here's two, from a Christian perspective for simplicity:
1) God is communicating with some people, who then misinterpret what he says.
2) God is communicating with some people, and other supernatural are communicating with others.
It would be possible to come up with more. It's even possible to come up with reasons other than delusion and groupthink where the result is still wrong.
The bottom line is we simply don't know, nor will we likely ever know unless we make a time machine.
posted
Bev, it's a shame that the exact same process described in Alma is also a textbook example of brainwashing. Trying to believe until you believe is pretty much guaranteed to work for anything.
---------
Dag, in order for your two additional possibilities to be MORE likely than groupthink or delusion, you would have to accept two other postulates:
1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him; 2) That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.
If you're willing to accept these possibilities, I'm willing to let the "greater likelihood" bit slide.
posted
I must say, that is a pretty cynical view of it. But I can understand why you look at it that way.
Edit: I personally think a lot of people call things brainwashing that are nothing of the sort. By such definitions, it is *impossible* for a parent not to brainwash their child, despite their best efforts.
posted
In my education, I didn't learn any facts. I only learned strongy supported theories. There is no right and wrong in Linguistics, only stronger and weaker arguments. Data may arise that will require revision. The Ph.D.s kind of hope it does, otherwise they will be out of a job.
P.S. Tom, I don't have any problem with those premises.
quote:That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.
If you add "than God is willing to communicate" then I could accept that.
Of course, not all religions have a "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense. Many of them don't contradict each other, because many are not meant to be comprehensive.
Edit: As to the first postulate, you'd have to define "bad." It's possible that clearer revalation from God would have undesirable side effects on humanity.
posted
Brainwashing, social conditioning. Becoming socialized to a group's acceptable behavior patterns.
-Trevor
Edit 1: Undesireable in what context? And to whom? God's relevation might very well end a great deal of conflict and confusion on the planet as all are made aware of:
Yes Virginia, there is a God
God has a plan and it's (insert here)
Begin
Unless of course, all the conflict, strife and general confusion is part of his greater plan and there is a purpose that we are unaware of yet.
To which I submit, I cannot be against God's plan if he expects me to challenge the belief of his Children. Like the barrels in the obstacle course, I serve the greater purpose.
Edit 2: For grammar Edit 3: Because I forgot to note Edit 1 tags.
posted
Oh, an BTW, Tom, I think don't think this is a "try to believe until you believe" as much as it is a "drive this car so you can see for yourself how well it handles." Is that brainwashing? It is asking you to try something out. Try before you buy. How is that brainwashing?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Try before you buy. How is that brainwashing?"
Well, speaking as someone who HAS tried, and didn't buy, I was told repeatedly that I had not apparently tried in the right spirit, or honestly enough, or humbly enough, or....Anyway, you get the idea: that I would have to keep trying, each time with less and less skepticism, and I would know that I was finally doing it properly when I felt what they told me I should be feeling.
That is, I'm afraid, brainwashing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, the logic tends to be: Well if it didn't happen, obviously you didn't do it right.
Which is one possible explanation. Another is - there was nothing to happen and I'm not willing to lie or pretend something did happen.
If I make myself believe, then yes - I could find faith. But that doesn't convince me of the inherent rightness or correctness of this faith versus any other self-perpetuating belief system.
quote: Dag, in order for your two additional possibilities to be MORE likely than groupthink or delusion, you would have to accept two other postulates:
1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him; 2) That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.
He would *have* to accept these two other postulates? You speak as though those are the only explainations. I can come up with others, the ones I personally believe.
First of all, you have to accept this postulate: that faith is a necessary thing to develop to reach the potential God has in mind for us. I must admit, I do not fully understand this postulate myself. But I do accept it without difficulty because of my own reasons for faith and because I accept that there is much that the human mind cannot grasp.
Secondly, you have to accept that free agency is crucial also. This is much easier for me to accept, because I can understand the benefits to human growth. I do admit that it is difficult to understand the delicate balance between free agency and faith. On one extreme, you have rebellion against God. The other extreme is blind obedience. I think both are undesirable.
Therefore, God must communicate with man (or woman) in such a way that does not erase the need to develop faith and still allows him his free agency. This is a pretty big filter to work through. I am certainly not surprised at garbled outputs.
Third, those other supernaturals *could* be enemies to God given their own free agency to influence man so that man can truly have free agency. If I may quote scripture, 2 Nephi 2:16
quote: 16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act• for himself. Wherefore, man could not act• for himself save it should be that he was enticed• by the one or the other.
"One or the other" refers to good and evil.
So how would man know what to believe? That is what the Holy Ghost is for. While the communication is subtle, it is undeniable unless a person is being dishonest with themselves.
How do you know the difference between such influence and the thoughts and feelings natural to your mind? First, I imagine you do have to be actually looking for it. Secondly, you have to be ready to receive it, to accept it. Thirdly, if you experience it, you will know.
Not the most satisfactory answer, but oh well. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I WAS going to stay out of this, but Tom...
quote: 1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him;
You don't think God has the ability to make us all believe exactly as he wants us to believe instanteously whenever he wants? Sure, God could just suddenly open himself up so that everyone in the world would know him, and know all the answers to all the questions, and have no division or argumentation of beliefs at all...
...but then that wouldn't be freewill on our part, would it? It wouldn't be giving us a choice as to whether or not to believe on faith. That would make us nothing more than his drones -- because there would be no CHOOSING to follow God...
posted
To both Tom and Trevor, while I might privately believe that is true--that the reason you did not receive a witness has more to do with you than the actual truth--I probably wouldn't say that to your face unless directly asked.
I can't speak of your specific experience, Tom, because I know nothing about it. Nothing to go on.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Beverly touched on some of the possible effects of too direct communication with God. There are others that have been discussed, but I think these are the big two.
It may be that God does exist and to experience his proof requires me to first embrace him of my own free will.
It is equally possible that I cannot hope to understand God's intentions as He is so completely alien to my own understanding, so every challenge I pose has a legitimate answer that is beyond my ken to understand.
But from my outsider's perspective, that answer could be applied to any number of philosophies, Christianity or LDS being just two of the chorus. And with equal justification.
posted
As long as you admit that it is a possibility, that's fine with me. I freely admit that the explaination of their being no God makes just as much sense to the human mind. I am not at all surprised at the growing number of athiests and agnostics about us. People can come up with explainations to believe whatever they want to believe.
I just want Tom to admit that he is every bit as evangelical as I am, if not more so. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, BTW Tom, if you have tried and you ain't buyin' and the person is pressuring you further, that is akin to brainwashing. I would hope that I haven't done that to anyone. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Beverly touched on some of the possible effects of too direct communication with God."
If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.
-----
Bev, I'll freely admit to trying to be an evangelical agnostic; in fact, I announced my intentions along those lines a month or two ago on this forum, specifically in response to what I believe is a growing religious threat not only to our society but specifically to this forum. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.
Ah, but consider a patient God who gives us every chance to accept Him, both in this life and for quite a long while after this life. According to my understanding of LDS theology, our own personal final judgement does not come until God has given us far more chances than we deserve.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.
It's not a question of "learning," Tom. It's a question of choosing.
posted
Tom, you blame the teacher for the unruly kids who sit in the class, don't pay attention, and disrespect the teacher, causing trouble and dissention among the classmates?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG, I disagree that if God told us, with complete certainty that he existed, that it would remove free will from us. Telling someone a fact doesn't remove the free will of a person to act on that given fact.
After all, Lucifer knew exactly that God existed, but still rejected Him.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Trying to believe until you believe is pretty much guaranteed to work for anything.
