A common anti-science argument is that we don't know everything, so we need to be open-minded.

That is true, but I'll be damned if in the end, all scientific discovery concludes with us finding out that our ancestors in the Dark Ages had it right all along. What a joke.

The "we don't know everything" argument doesn't mean that we
don't know something. The problem is not what we don't know,
it's what we do know.

The problem with Mormonism is not that I have doubts, the
problem with Mormonism is that I have knowledge.

Very well said.

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "we don't know everything" argument doesn't
> mean that we
> don't know something. The problem is not what we
> don't know,
> it's what we do know.
>
> The problem with Mormonism is not that I have
> doubts, the
> problem with Mormonism is that I have knowledge.

____________________________________--

This could be made into a refrigerator magnet.

It's so very true.

“We don’t know everything” What a sweeping and shallow statement.

The problem is that this statement is used as a reason to suspend logic and rational probabilities and leap into the fantastic.

Of course we don’t know everything. That is a self-evident statement.

As baura stated, the issue is with what we do know.

And we know one thing with absolute certainty.

No one can put unknown ancient documents in the woods outside their home, sit their butts in a chair in a room inside their house, place a rock in a hat, put their face in that same hat to block out the light, then presume to tell others that they can see the translation of the same documents now sitting in the woods coming across as a familiar text with the light from the illuminated text in the darkness of the hat.

That never happens and everyone knows it!

So behold the latest embarrassment of Mormonism! They have come out in public to call the ridiculous a “treasured testament”. If you were not a rabid TBM before and were slightly uncomfortable with telling folks you were Mormon your situation has now multiplied many times over.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2015 09:41AM by AmIDarkNow?.

So well said, baura

you cannot be sure the LDS church as false. No matter how many historical, archaeological, and credibility problems it has. Yeah, well someone could say the same thing about any other wacky belief system, but that doesn't obligate me to go along with it.

The burden of proof is on THEM (or on God) to show it's true, not on you to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that it's false.

Confidence about conclusions is such a matter of degree! When it comes to whether I'm right about the lack of truth in Mormonism this degree isn't even close, though. They only have largely discredited or personal testimonials from throughout their years, after speaking of which their hierarchy don't usually dwell long on the direct physical, historical, or archaeological record. They know it doesn't help them in the slightest or else they'd talk it up endlessly if it did. Most of us are very unequivocal about all of this, I think, because the questions are too straightforward if you take an honest look at it all. All you need for this is question is readily available! I've seen enough of it over my decades to feel I have a fair overall sampling of how it works, having believed until I no longer could, so seeing both sides.

The race between the reasons for retaining belief and not is slightly closer than it is in Mormonism, I'd suggest, in many other systems of belief. This isn't really saying much, however. In a universe as large, diverse, and partially understood as this is I'm yet to find a claim for divine knowledge that doesn't fall flat functionally in the face of the unknown that is still out there. Where is the explanatory value? How often does the sytem of thought in question really expand our understanding, releasing our limitations inside or out? The person preaching any of this almost always falls in the way of their statement anyways in my experience. There's so much more to the knowing than the saying!

As the understanding of this universe is advanced by humanity the previous religious establishments falter in their explanatory power more and more. Alternatively the old religions of history were replaced by the varied efforts of the newer ones. Without anyone following the superstition to worship the previous gods and no general pattern of bad consequences resulting it becomes very "academic" to let go of any tendency to attach to these supposed gods emotionally or personally. If the currently prevalant gods were replaced or were no longer worshipped it raises the point that such a shift in mentality might happen again, remembering anew what those who have feared a similar consequence in the past might suggest about their gods and the retribution thereof.

I think it's helpful here to interject that the term "open-minded" is interesting because it can be used for two broad but very different purposes: maintaining humble readiness for whatever prevailing system of thought can realistically fit the available information when it's fully available or, much less productively, hanging on for old "possible" ideological bets that almost certainly represent a losing cause in the long term, gambling they still could be made right by something... somewhere... capable of making it all fit at the last moment. If your "open mind" is the second category the chances are rather straightforward in this light that it's time to close it already and open it on a more productive front elsewhere, choosing the "embrace" rather than the "hold-on-for-dear-life" approach. I think this paragraph actually describes a good percentage of the conflict I see in general, in Mormonism heavily but also in many other facets of life.

It's obvious which of the above groups is best at being forward-looking. It's strange how they're so different despite the same label, to the point where two people could accuse each other of closed-mindedness in the same conversation with their own definition of the term. With two definitions it could get hard to intepret this thing before long. It's worth remembering I think, though, that as long as one is protecting an area inside that is immune to the application of external information, wherever that information goes, there will be a tendency to tune out everything heard that doesn't preserve this ideology. I'll grant a person in such a situation could be called "open" in a sense though it's a very narrow, inwardly directed one.

"Sure things" are rare. Possibilities are fine though they aren't worth relying on when they're little more than a lottery. Pointing at your best odds is your best bet generally. The overwhelming odds out there today are on this avalanche of evidence that just keeps growing all around us, the one that has extended our perceivable universe to the point of being a far greater representative sample of our reality exponentially, greater than it has ever been previously in our history. Even if it isn't perfect, and it never really will be, these aren't just tea leaves we're reading!

The biggest problem with that argument is that it's very often framed differently:

"We don't know everything, so magic."

:(

I agree, science doesn't know everything.

However, I have faith that science will find answers that are accurate, relevant, and important for our existence. The scientific community won't get everything right first time, every time, but truth will prevail eventually.

I have zero faith in religion to progress its knowledge or relevance.

Agreed

Being open minded does not mean empty headed.