Not directly -- I mean, I heard it from a TBM's sister,
over the phone at Christmas.

"My brother and people in his ward say 'Science is just
a theory,' -- isn't that crazy!"

She herself is what we might call a fringe Mormon or a
cultural Mormon. But her mid-fifties, second counselor
in the Bishoprick, totally faithful brother parrots a
party line that he heard.... where?

Which of the General Authorities are feeding this line
of argument to the members?

It effectively sets aside biological evolution, the age
of the earth, the question of life and death before Adam,
climate change, possible living beings residing in the Sun,
and a whole host of other old LDS controversies.

Today's member need not worry about any seeming conflicts,
because, after all -- probably "Science" is wrong -- after
all it's "just a theory."

Are Mormons really that stupid?

UD

Anyone who accepts anything as absolute truth is ignorant, even science gets things wrong, balance between the two is much better

Agreed!

that one should have a healthy skepticism even about science. New developments are being made all the time as scientific investigation continues. Believe intelligently but keep an open mind.

it's important to note, that the reason people don't trust science is because whenever science gets it wrong, they ignore the method employed by science that falsified a theory. Science is a process that uses the scientific method to make testable prediction about nature.

So none of these science deniers use electricity, drive cars, watch TV, run to a doctor when they're sick...? Good for them.

Like dinosaur bones, those things are put here by Satan to lead us astray, but magic underwear protects mormons from it.

Stray Mutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So none of these science deniers use electricity,
> drive cars, watch TV, run to a doctor when they're
> sick...? Good for them.


I'm just guessing, but the answer from Utah is, probably:

"That stuff is just technology. Scientists don't make TVs.
TVs are made by teenage girls standing 12 hours a day in
factory assembly lines in Shanghai..."

UD

she means evolution, climate change, and anything else that contradicts what she's been told by the Mormon church and/or Fox News.

Yeah, I got from my TBM friend, "Science doesn't know everything, ya know?"

You don't need to know everything to know more than Iron Age soothsayers and frontier conmen.

Well, technically that's true ... science *doesn't* know everything. But science does have a methodology for trying to find things out.

There is no belief in science. Science is a system of sceptical inquiry.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no belief in science. Science is a
> system of sceptical inquiry.


I think his point of view must be that the whole
concept of observing the world, taking measurements,
making comparisons, using logic, recording, conducting
experiments, etc. is the wrong way to know what is
important and what is true in life.

The Standard Works and the Living Prophet provide us with
all "the facts" -- that require no "inquiry." etc. etc.

UD

...destroy everything that does not agree with the Koran, burn everything that does not agree with the Bible, the physical world that you see is not real -- the real existence is the life to come, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Thinking rationally instead of irrationally is what I get for watching tapes of the "Ascent Of Man" at the public library when I was growing up :)

A Luddite with a microwave is a liar and a hypocrite.

. . . a given physical phenomenon.

This TBM-tainted toddler obviously has the term "theory" confused with the term "hypothesis," the latter which is merely a guess that hasn't yet been subjected to scientifically-methodological processes of empirical testing, observation, authentication or falsification.

Might want to inform this doofus of the fact that religion is just a hypothesis.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 08:45PM by steve benson.

Well, not *all* aspects of religion are mere hypotheses. There *are* select doctrines of certain faiths with aspects that are provable even by the scientific method ...

. . . called "God" by those who don't know enough to know better, is a hypothesis still waiting for verification (and, no, warm fuzzies don't count).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 08:55PM by steve benson.

Belief in God is not the only aspect of religious belief, although certainly it is an important one in theistic traditions. However even with that, an argument is made that a certain area of study must be examined with an appropriate methodology for that area of study. Just as there are physics-appropriate methods for physics study and management-appropriate methods for management science study, one should find spiritually-appropriate methods for spiritual study, including topics related to God.

An experimental method based on the traditional approach of simply asking God if He exists or what faith is "true", as an example, although theists of various religious affiliations will assert that it "works" and that it should lead to *their* faith being recognised as "true", is a tricky approach to use because simply taking the result of that at face value fails to account for a number of factors. Someone may already have a pre-conceived bias for or against a belief in God or a particular faith, may be influenced by others with such biases, or may simply be at a point in life where a certain level of spiritual understanding is appropriate and may be given that accordingly. The latter factor (that Krishna/God gives us what we are spiritually ready for at a particular point in time) is a key teaching of the Hare Krishna faith and an explanation for why such a test might yield different results. That method, while possibly able to be followed by the scientific method to some capacity, would be a difficult one to apply to spiritual matters especially if that reason for differences in results applies.

Happy Hare Krishna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...the traditional approach of simply asking God if
>He exists...

I suppose I might start by asking some questions:

What are the benefits of traditional approaches? And
what are their shortcomings?

Why do "traditional approaches" use the singular male
pronoun, when referring to "God"? Is there a compelling
reason for such an approach, or might it be abandoned?

What is existence? Are all real things subject to it?
And, would "God" be inferior to existence if "He" (?)
existed in the same way that other things exist?

Do I myself exist? Or, is there some aspect of the being
that is identified in myself that is transcendent of
existence?

Is "God" real, in the same way that 2+2=4 real?
Am I myself real? And, if so, how is that reality any
different from the supposed reality of "God."

How is "God" different from my idea of "God"? and how is
my own self any different from my idea of self?

If I come to any new realization of "God" -- is it my
self, that has changed? God that has changed? Both? Neither?

------

That is how I might begin to consider "traditional approaches."

UD

The benefits of traditional approaches where they are successful are well-established and can be seen by their results. The shortcomings arise in their susceptibility to or failure to account for difficulties that might make their approach unsuccessful or produce invalid or misleading results, such as that which has been described in this thread in relation to exploring the existence of God.

The question of why a singular male pronoun is a very easy one to answer: traditionally ancient monotheistic faiths have had either solely a male Deity (as in Judaism) or a single Deity with male and female forms (as in Hinduism and the Hare Krishna faith). Naturally the singular male pronoun form took precedence. Also in a number of societies worldwide patriarchy became the dominant social structure, and consequently even when a male and female form of a Deity was acnkowledged reference to the male form or acceptance of the male form as dominant became preferred. In modern society even faiths which acknowledge both forms (as in the Hare Krishna faith and Hinduism) may tend to "default" to using the male form unless specifically discussing the female form since that's what we've been conditioned to do over the years. This is even despite the fact that in some faiths both forms take equal precedence, and in other faiths the female form actually takes precedence.

The questions of existence, what is "real", and the true nature of God, have been extensively debated between religious traditions and even within religious traditions (c.f. the extreme diversity of Hindu philosophies on these very topics). From the Hare Krishna faith perspective, yes, God is "real" in the same way that 2+2=4 is real, and you are also real, and everything that exists is also real in the same way. God has a particular inherent nature, and you also (as a spirit soul - beyond this body - which is your "real" identity, as the body is really more like the "clothes" your soul wears and not a true reflection of the real *you*) have a particular inherent nature. Matter is also real but can be temporary in its existence in a particular form, much in the same way that a building is real for as long as it stands, but can cease to exist as a building (and exist in some other form) if it's toppled over, or that a river is real for as long as it is there, but the water within it will exist in another (possibly evaporated) form and no longer as a river if the river runs dry. God is unchanging in His nature, and so if you have a new idea about Him, it's your thoughts that have changed, not you personally (because you are not your thoughts either, just like you are not your body, but a spirit soul), and certainly not God.

Also, regarding the single male pronoun question, the faiths that believe in a single Deity with male and female forms may in the modern day and age may by default use the singular male form out of sheer habit. In the Hare Krishna faith, which has a great number of "converts", many of whom were Jews or Christians, that's especially true. They grew up always referring to God as a He, so now, even when they believe God has a male form (Krishna) and a female form (Radha), they still tend to more often use He. Both forms, individually and together, are definitely acknowledged and worshiped even by them, but society conditioning and habits from past spiritual traditions have inadvertently carried on. In this faith, they wouldn't be wrong to refer to God as a He, because He does have a male form, but they also wouldn't be wrong to refer to God as a She, in female form, or as They in refering to the male and female forms together.

Happy Hare Krishna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ...God is unchanging in His nature, and so if you
> have a new idea about Him, it's your thoughts that
> havemchanged, not you personally (because you are
> not your thoughts either, just like you are not your
> body, but a spirit soul), and certainly not God.

A remarkable set of assertions -- but they remain only
assertions, appearing from a disembodied entity upon
a computer screen. Is there some compelling reason that
such assertions should be accepted as the only valid
answers to questions, about how to view and consider
"traditional approaches?"

Might not some part of such a set of assertions be
faulty, incomplete, incorrect, or even maliciously
wrong and intentionally misleading?

Science does not say much about "souls" and "spirits,"
and so a scientific investigation of traditional
approaches probably would not begin by accepting that
such entities are real.

As for the self NOT being God; that too is an unfounded
assertion. Perhaps it has validity, or perhaps not. But
a scientific examination of claims regarding both the
self and God would not begin by addressing this assertion.

I am personally not convinced that the self, above and
beyond the will, rationality, and mundane realization is
NOT identical to God -- that the sentient mind creates
"God" in the same way that it comes to the conclusion of
its own being (whether within or transcendent to "existence').

UD

. . . of most religions.

Aspects of physical reality--ones that have been reliably authenticated in the explicable, demonstrable form of empirical evidence--are provided by methodological science.

Religionists who accept scientifically-confirmed fact are those who are willing to incorporate the findings of science into their religious systems. But it is the science, not the religion, that provides the empirically-proveable particulars for the reality of what goes on, and how it goes on, in the biosphere.

Everything else is either supposition or faith.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 09:12PM by steve benson.

The same point applies: the physical is distinct from the spiritual, just as physics is different from chemistry, which is different from astronomy, which is different from geology, which is different from social science, which is different from management science ... The right methods for each particular field would need to be applied for accurate results to be reflected in the study.

If there is a "spiritual" world, prove its actual existence. If you can't, it's a matter of faith.

Let me demonstrate for you how how critical thinkers use language more precisely than do theists:

Those in the scientific community who understand the importance of word-meaning don't "believe" in evolution any more than they "believe" in god. Rather, they "accept" evolution as fact.

A few years ago I had the chance to do a nine-day white-water/calm-eddy river raft of the Colorado River, in the company of a group of various scientists (geneticists, biologists, anthropologists and physicists included). It was an amazing and educating experience.

We camped out at night on the Colorado's sandbars and during the day--launching from a point in the Grand Canyon where the rocks, sediments and fossils were the oldest--steadily made our way along the river, examining the observable evidence for the long-term evolution of the Canyon. What was particularly interesting was to have compare-and-contrast presentations made by scientists along the way regarding the real-science evolutionary vs. the pseudo-science creationary explanations for how the Grand Canyon physically came to be.

Among those on the rafting trip was Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (the group that organized the river expedition).

Eugenie has made it a point then and since that when educating supporters of evolution on how to deal with an remarkably uninformed and illiterate public, it is very important to "watch your language," so to speak. In efforts to defend and explain the realities of evolution to novices and (in particular) to anti-science religious believer types, language is a critically important tactical device for use in the delivery of facts.

Below is the text of an interview with her on the importance of using words, language and terminology precisely and meaningfully:

"Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.

"[Question to Scott]: 'So you urge scientists not to say that they 'believe' in evolution?!'

"[Scott's answer]: 'Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say. . . .What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

"'You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you 'accept evolution.'

"Q: 'How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?'

"Scott: 'To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science. . . . An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.

"'You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data 'sheds new light on this part of evolution.'

"Q: 'So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?'

"Scott: 'Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.'

"Q: 'So how do you explain what science is?'

"Scott: 'An idea that I stole from [physicist] James Trefil visualizes the content of science as three concentric circles: the core ideas in the center, the frontier ideas in the next ring out and the fringe ideas in the outermost ring. . . .

"'[We need to] help the public understand that the nature of scientific explanations is to change with new information or new theory — this is a strength of science — but that science is still reliable. And the core ideas of science do not change much, if at all.

"'The core idea of evolution is common ancestry, and we’re not likely to change our minds about that. But we argue a lot about … how the tree of life is branched and what mechanisms bring evolutionary change about. That’s the frontier area of science.

"'And then of course you have areas that claim to be science, like "creation science" and "intelligent design,” that are off in the fringe. Scientists don’t spend much time here because the ideas haven’t proven useful in understanding the natural world.

"Q: 'You’ve been on talk radio a lot. What’s your sense of what the public understands about evolutionary biology?'

"Scott: 'The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. They think it’s a great chain . . . of gradual increases in complexity of forms through time, which is certainly an impoverished view of evolutionary biology. That view is the source, in my opinion, of: “If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” ... That’s probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.

"'It’s like saying, "If you evolved from your cousins, why are your cousins still here?" And of course the answer is, well, in fact, I didn’t evolve from my cousins. My cousins and I shared common ancestors, in our grandparents.'

"Q: 'What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?'

"Scott: 'Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it."

"Q: 'What should scientists and people who care about science do?'

"Scott: 'I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change . . . you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will . . . accept the science."

(Eugenie Scott, "Accept It: Talk about Evolution Needs to Evolve," in "Science News: Magazine for the Society for Science and the Public," vol. 176, #3, 1 August 2009, p. 32, at: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45594/title/Comment__Accept_it_Talk_about_evolution_needs_to_evolve; for a related thread, see: "Why I hate the phrase 'I don't believe in god.'" posted by "kolobian," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 5 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357373)

*****


I suspect that theists prefer that atheists process like theists do; namely, in terms and context of "belief." Theists are big into "belief"-thinking (a true oxymoron) and seek to control the court by telling atheists that they (atheists) "believe" in their own "religion" of atheism. Religious processing of ideas through the use of "belief" language is the only kind of lingo that theists really know and feel comfortable with. It is a familiar, thumb-sucking Linus-like blanket to them.

http://possil.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/linus-blanket.gif


Therefore, it not only makes theists feel angry, it makes them feel uneasy and vulnerable when they are confronted with non-believers who don't buy into the believer's game of thought control through theistic terminology control. Deep down, theists may well realize that thinking is more grounded than believing. (For evidence of that, one need look no further than the futile and dishonest attempts by anti-science creationists to gain credibility in the real world by wrapping their other-worldly religious beliefs in the trappings of pseudo-scientific language).

Atheists scare the hell out of theists.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 09:19PM by steve benson.

"If there is a "spiritual" world, prove its actual existence. If you can't, it's a matter of faith."

This is in the same realm as the existence of God, and faces the same caveats: if you aren't ready for the spiritual world yet, according to a number of faiths (including the Hare Krishna faith), then it is believed that (whether you believe in that or not) it will not be accessible to you yet, and would therefore be difficult to prove. Until a "spiritual" methodology that gets around this caveat is found that is accepted by the non-religious as well as the religious, the non-religious will probably continue to insist that this can only be believed in and accepted based on faith.

But that such a methodology has not yet been found or accepted by the non-religious doesn't mean that there never will be. A change in methodological approach or a change in attitude towards available methodologies could open up the possibility for further exploration in that regard.

. . . fact-based. If they were, you would have used this thread to demonstrate their factual basis. The fact that you haven't indicates that you are living by faith; not by evidence.

If you have evidence for the existence of "God," explicate it, demonstrate it, authenticate it. And explain the tools you used to do so.

Is that so hard?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 09:49PM by steve benson.

"Is that so hard?"

Yes, because at present, the "methods" I have used to validate my own faith include methods (such as experiential methods - "try this and see what happens") that may or may not be recognised by all of the non-religious, although some might acknowledge them (and some have done so), and/or that involve methods with caveats (e.g., my experience may not be your experience, as maybe God is intentionally giving us different experiences that are appropriate for our respective levels of spiritual experience) that may cause difficult-to-replicate results. It's not impossible for us to have the same results, but the very nature of the methods is that there is no guarantee that we will, and so it would not be wise for me to hand over these methods to you, and expect that you'll have the exact same results (contrary to the faith-based assertion that if you pray to God to ask if He exists or which faith is true, He'll tell you exactly the same thing that He told me).

This tenet (that our experiences might be different, despite trying the same things) is central to my faith, as is the reason for it (that we may be spiritually ready for different things at certain points in time), but people can see this even without being believers in my faith. How else could so many people pray to God to ask if He exists and seemingly have radically different results? (Some become Hare Krishnas, some become Mormons, some become non-religious believers in God, etc.)

In short: I can give you my methods for how I came to my own faith, but there is no guarantee I have that you will agree with them, or that you'll have the same results from them.

Unlike, say, titration, there isn't at this time one universally agreed upon set of methods for determining spiritual validity that is, across the board, accepted and recognised by everyone, that gives everyone the same results. That doesn't mean that such a method cannot exist, as maybe (from a theistic perspective) God provides a way for that to happen. But it's not something that everyone has figured out yet, if there is such a method.

Happy Hare Krishna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, not *all* aspects of religion are mere
> hypotheses. There *are* select doctrines of
> certain faiths with aspects that are provable even
> by the scientific method ...

Care to give us some examples of these doctrines?

There are several examples, but perhaps the easiest to point out are the ones where there is some intersection between spiritual principles and physical, measurable concepts. Technically a lot of these in many cases are part of doctrine. And, for the same reasons of why testing something like the existence of God with traditional scientific methods might be problematic, testing the theological aspects of or reasons for these things being true can be tricky as well. But the "material" aspects or results can be seen.

It can be, and has been, objectively proven that mantra meditation has noticeable, positive physical effects on the brain and noticeable, positive psychological effects. At least one study (from USF) has found, objectively, that the the use Hare Krishna maha-mantra in particular (the chant that Hare Krishna devotees sing and recite, "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare") in mantra meditation had superior psychological effects to other mantra meditation intervention, and effects which continued to last to a significant extent even after the interventions were stopped (as opposed to the other intervention whose effects were nullified upon stopping).

It is part of the doctrine of the Hare Krishna faith that, along with the spiritual benefits (of getting closer to Krishna/God, etc.), this mantra also has the nice "side effects" of providing such psychological benefits, and that while other meditation exercises as well as other mantras recited for various purposes may have some positive effect, this particular mantra is unique in its material as well as spiritual benefits. *Why* this is so from a spiritual point of view is not examined in these studies (or even from a material point of view, in the case of examining why the Hare Krishna maha-mantra had a superior and longer-lasting effect) but *that* it is true to the degree described in the studies has been established.

Now, scientifically demonstrate the purported reality of "God."

If you can't, welcome to the wonderful world of faith. (Warning: Do not attempt faith in the science lab; it doesn't work).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 09:47PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Might want to inform this doofus of the fact that
> religion is just a hypothesis.

You're being kind. Religion is more a conjecture. A hypothesis at least implies something testable.

So I'm guessing they don't believe in gravity, since that's "just" a theory, too.

All theists will rationalize ad-absurdum to justify their beliefs. Just remember: "Faith is pretending to know things you do not know."

So will adamant atheists.

*Some adamant atheists (and other non-religious persons). I have heard of certain amongst them who refuse/deny aspects of religious beliefs with verifiable components (such as the effectiveness of mantra meditation in scientific studies) simply because they were somehow connected with religion and therefore (according to them) should not be accepted as true.

"a" means "without;" and

"theism" means "a belief in God."

Hence, "atheism" means "without a belief in God."

Please memorize.

There will be a test.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 09:04PM by steve benson.

Atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, is the belief that there is not a God; it is derived from the Greek word áthe(os) which means "Godless". The absolute certainty that there is not, or that there cannot be, a God or a "true" faith, without any doubt (as opposed to agnosticism, in which there is a doubt in this regard, and recognition of a possibility that God exists or that some particular faith could be "true", but with uncertainty as to whether that is the case)is a belief in itself that requires faith to accept and believe.

Slight correction: the Greek word atheos, from which the English term atheist is derived, literally means "to deny the gods, godless" according to the dictionary.

Atheists accept facts; they don't believe non-factual claims of religious believers.

Sure...OK. I agree. It's "just a theory". They don't realize that's not an insult, it's a huge compliment.

That's what's so amazing about science. Look at all the amazing things we've done with it--and it's only a piddly-ass theory!

That lil ol' theory cured polio, built ENIAC, shrunk it down to a pocket size device costing $5, then put us on the moon!

"Science is just a method" would have been OK.

Saying it is a "theory" proves they doesn't know science...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 09:28PM by zenjamin.

zenjamin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Science is just a method" would have been OK.
>
> Saying it is a "theory" proves they doesn't know
> science...

I suppose that the last thing in the world such a
person might wish to do, would be to learn and know
"Science."

"Theory," on the other hand, can be talked about as
if it were a hunch, opinion, false choice, mistake,
guesswork, etc.

None of those characterizations necessarily come
anywhere near matching up with what "Science" has
to say about itself or about theories -- but that's
OK, for the ignorant guy/gal. They don't want to
know any of that. They are just looking for a word
whereby they can dismiss an opposing methodology.

UD

. . . but not tested.