2006-01-13 Reaction to Religion discussion

Woozle Posted 2006-01-13

Ok, there's a problem with this whole thing of "you must accept the whole doctrine or none of it" thing. There's nothing in science that's like that. Isaac Newton got some stuff wrong; so did Einstein.

Newton's laws of motion were found to be wrong when you get very small or very fast. Does this mean everything Newton said was wrong? Or that the Laws of Motion are wrong? No; it means that the Laws of Motion are right for most practical purposes, but they're now a special case of General Relativity (or something like that) which is much more complicated but remains accurate for very small things and very fast things (and very heavy things, etc.).

So... who is to say that just because Joseph Smith's hand was divinely guided, everything he wrote is correct? I mean, I understand the thinking: God is perfect and cannot make mistakes; God was writing through Smith; so everything written was perfect and without error.

I'd say that just means we don't have a theory to explain how error could have happened.

Let's postulate that God is in fact incapable of error, and did in fact guide the hand of Joseph Smith during the writing in question.

So... theory: what if God *deliberately* put some errors in? (For reasons we don't yet understand, that is.)

I could start coming up with theories for why He might have done so, but that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have to swallow a doctrine whole or reject it entirely.

Response from Vee

TheWoozle: And I'm willing to buy the assertion that religion can help people organize their lives and feel better about their lives, which is a testable assertion. Vee: Religion is *not* some general ethics that seem to work for people and are somehow (teaching, culture, brainwashing) transmited to other people for them to try and fiddle with and reinvent for the current situation. Religion *is* the pursuit of truth at its source. Personal compliance with truth yields a true life. The results of that would depend on your religion.

To expound on that, a random group of teachings by humans would have some good points and some bad points. One item of the collection would be no more related to the other parts than the items in a stamp collection, different worths, different sources, different qualities. Any social group would have such collection.

Truth is a very different thing. There are plain and simply a set of facts that simply are. Whether humans live or die, whether they know those facts or not, whether they are believed or not, whether the sun expires destroying earth, those facts continue unaffected by those external events. That also means that there is exactly (one and only one) set of facts. Contradictory theories are false. Each flavor of religion claims a different set of facts, and usually a different source of discovering those facts. Not that there are not overlaps, simply that a religion is only true in the amount that it overlaps the real unaffected facts.

As such, science is just as much a religion as Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hindu, Wiccin, Pantheism et al. Not that science is any more false than the others, its just another method of discovering truth and to the extent it succeeds it is true.

Personal compliance with truth yields a true life.... I believe that a true life is one in tune with our nature, one that has peace and happiness in spite of personal circumstance and hardship, one that expands us, enlightens and lifts, and is itself a reward, as a fine instrument tuned to a perfect note.

The rest of the argument makes little sense when argued against truth. The only arguement left is what is truth and where do you get it.

* Tene also asserts Vee's statement and compliments her on her eloquence.

<Tene> few comments...

<Tene> We believe that our current doctrine is... kind of a superset of earlier doctrine

<Tene> that people then weren't ready for

<Tene> hmm...

* Tene looks for something

<Tene> http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/9

<Tene> We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

<Tene> err... in ""s

Vee continues Any other comment I could make comes from the biased perspective of my method of gaining truth. As Woozle so adeptly put it the other day, the main differences between our beliefs is our core foundation of beliefs. We arrive at truth very differently. Not that we don't often arrive at the same place (the same truths) from different directions. But that we both have pointed out the potential for error in the other's method. Woozle has pointed out that I may be misled by a "false prophet" (aka someone claiming truth from God but who is actually spreading psuedo-truth that suits their agenda). I have pointed out that reason and discussion can be swayed by charismatic debaters, that the believibility of human arguements is more dependant on linguistics and talent in oral skills than on facts.

I have countered that I need not believe on another's word alone, that I may ask God myself if the concepts are true and expect an answer (one not unlike those he recieves through introspection). I can further "test" a concept by putting it into practical application. A true principle will (as before stated) enlarge, enlighten, bring happiness and peace, and by inference from other truths I have already learned, neither hurt me nor anyone else. Yes, truth agrees with other truth and can be derived from known truths.

Woozle has countered that he need not believe on the merits of a persuasive arguement alone. Science is built to test such theories, and he is free to change his mind if future evidence counters a current belief.

Subsequent Dialog

TheWoozle	<(cuz there's more meat to what you said, but I want to get straight on this point first.)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<From what Tene said, it sounds like there are fundamental tenets (at *least* in LDS's doctrine, though this seems to be a common feature of most or all religion) which can't effectively be questioned while remaining part of that religion.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<I mean, sure, in an open-minded group like LDS nobody's going to kick you out for questioning the beliefs -- but you're not really going to be considered one of the faithful, yes?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<...if you up and decide, that is, that you really can't swallow, say, the idea that everything Joseph Smith wrote has to be true because it was the word of God.>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	<You'll probably get called to repentance or whatever, yeah.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<I want to make sure Vee doesn't have a different take on this...>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	<Okiday.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<actually, I disagreed with TenE just a bit on that point. In practice any given congregation is going have people that range the gamet from believe all kinds of things including some that aren't really established facts to those who believe little more than they maybe should try to go to church>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Hmm.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<But would such a person be considered welcome in discussions of doctrine?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<That is, would they be part of the church's search for truth?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Part of the dialogue by which that search takes place?>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<oh yeah..... I have listen to just such discussions.... everyone is allowed to talk in our church>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<So we've got two nays on that point and one yea...>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<It's a rather key point.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<the second question has a different answer>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<The church does not search for truth>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<It has it  ;)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<And everyone in the church understands it already?>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<no>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Ok, then -- "the church community's quest to understand the truth [already possessed by the church]".>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Better?>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	* cues "threefold mission of the church."	{{{3}}}
Vee	<:)>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<no>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	* is pulled away by a technical matter... back shortly...	{{{3}}}
Vee	<A great many truths are available to anyone who cares to receive them, but for the most part it is not requist that you do so to be part of the church or participate in church>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Ok. So anyway...>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<:)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<If, as Vee suggests, you really *are* allowed to question the doctrine without being excluded in any significant way, then a large part of the difference between science and [this particular] religion does kinda melt away, I think.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<hmm>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<"<TheWoozle> If, as Vee suggests, you really *are* allowed to question the doctrine without being excluded in any significant way,...">:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<you are allowed to question anything. You are allowed ask God, allowed to try out the doctrine, even allowed to voice your ideas in church discussions such as Sunday School.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<There is a point though, when you significantly advocate things contrary to the church that you may be removed from the membership.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<So in that way TenE and Story are right>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Yah.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Well... I could *see* how you could argue the same for science.>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	* returns again	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<However...>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<You could still go to church and still continue to discuss to your heart's content>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<By the way>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<science does the same thing>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	<This is true. It's more a case of preaching different beliefs than expressing them to get removed though, as I understand it.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Because if you start proposing wacky theories that really don't make sense in light of previous understanding, you'll stop being taken seriously as a scientist.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<*However*... I would still say there is a core difference...>:	{{{3}}}
FrozenTrout	<flat earth>:	{{{3}}}
Harena	<. o O (Discworld?)>:	{{{3}}}
FrozenTrout	<(hehe)>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<If you got up in a science conference and as part of your otherwise logical discussion particle behavior suggested that fairies propell eletrons....>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<...because questioning and coming up with new answers -- that disagree with the old ones, even -- is a fundamental part of science.>:	{{{3}}}
FrozenTrout	<and going to a conference of... yeah. that works betterer.>:	{{{3}}}
FrozenTrout	<(invisible dragons move the sun and planets!)>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<they would kick you out>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<But you see my point?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<It's *expected* that every now and then some new understanding will come along, and the whole "doctrine" will get turned on its head.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<(It's called a paradigm shift.)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	* <3 paradigm shifts	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<It happened at the beginning of the 1900s, with quantum physics.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<That's probably one of the best known examples, but there are others.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Like, when we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<And then when we realized that the sun wasn't the center of the universe.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<so science religion believes in unveiling new informaition that has never been supposed..... and occasionally God reveals a truth that has never before been known>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<The two processes seem superficially similar...>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<the difference really is in the source>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	* nodnods.	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<...but the difference is where the initiative is coming from.>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	<Vee keeps beating me to saying things.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<science knows it doesn't have all the answers.  ;)>:	{{{3}}}
Harena	<tha's 'cause she's smooooooth ;)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<I think most scientists would say that nobody can know all the answers, because there are an infinite number of questions.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Every question you answer turns up a dozen more questions.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Saying that new answers have to come from God supports the mindset that you should just sit around and wait for new answers, rather than exploring.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<But God isn't human, and if we are right, God does know everything>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Woozle: also, God reveals things as we are ready to accept them and able to understand them>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<and no it does not>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<not just on random whims>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<(that was to Woozle)>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<(nodnod)>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<TheWoozle: Saying that new answers have to come from God supports the mindset that you should just sit around and wait for new answers, rather than exploring.>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	<Science presumes a finite brain capacity and an infinite amount of knowledge.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Vee: ok, I'll buy that past arguments I have heard which used God as an excuse to suppress scientific exploration were basically from a standpoint of religious/spiritual ignorance, and not within the scope of the type of religion we're discussing>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<God promotes right in the scriptures that people should pursue truth>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Ok.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<that includes investigating claims already made and pursuing questions not before answered.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<You are aware that our leadership aren't paid right?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<No, I wasn't...>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<And that they all have careers outside of the church>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Perhaps that's why LDS seems more benevolent than many flavors of Christianity...>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<(in spite of the wacky doctrine (-; )>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<And some of the leadership *are* scientists>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<:)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<However, power doesn't have to involve money.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<That is true>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<At least, not in the form of a salary.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<But what power do they receive?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Well... from what you're saying, this *may* not apply to LDS... but in many churches, the power to determine how doctrine is interpreted and applied to daily life -- or even just to heavily influence people's thinking about it -- is, well, power.>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<If they themselves advocate that you should ask God and question whatever they say?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<If they're honest, they'll say that.>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Does that mean that if they say that, they're honest?>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<If they're less honest, they might kinda downplay that point.>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<Tene: I'd say that admitting you can be wrong is a large part of intellectual honesty, though there are other ways to be intellectually dishonest.>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Hmm... I could make a decent analogy between the LDS church and the internet...>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Maybe another time>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<(Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but that just shows how seriously you should take the top of my head.)>:	{{{3}}}
TheWoozle	<And it's dinnertime.>:	{{{3}}}
StoryTime	<Heh>:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<Woozle: *and* most positions of authority are temporary and you serve a certain time and then you get a new job, teaching the 3 yo maybe  :)>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Positions of authority are basically "we need organization">:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<My last bishop served for 5 years and now he and his wife run the nursery (the 18 month to 3 yos in our congregation)>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<(is that a decent way of putting it, Vee?)>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Not "you'll do what I say">:	{{{3}}}
Vee	<yeah>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Also, isn't it true that all callings are requests, not commands?>:	{{{3}}}
FrozenTrout	<aye, you can turn them down>:	{{{3}}}
FrozenTrout	<be like "No.">:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<Come to think of it, I can't think of any place in the church where authority is really "authority" so much...>:	{{{3}}}
Tene	<except, like, excommunication and disfellowship and such>:	{{{3}}}

Woozle Adds

(This was getting too long for chat.)

I have to wonder if this explains a lot of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. A scientist looks at the facts and sees a lot of evidence pointing to the idea that Evolution is how we came to be here. An Intelligent Designist comes along and says "Oh, but wait! Your theory doesn't explain this!" (Pointing to, say, lack of fossil evidence for an intermediate organism between humans and their immediate ancestors.) "Therefore Evolution is wrong!"

But that's not how it works. Science is not all-or-nothing; it's "best fit". Religion tends to be all-or-nothing, and I think it's because that's how it propagates; dogmatic doctrine, where you either agree with all of it or are excluded from the community, forms a thick line of separation to prevent anyone in the community from asking too many questions.

and I don't think I'm done with this, but I have to do some other stuff for a bit, so I'm saving what I've written so far and will come back to it later. --Woozle 13:41, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Woozle Adds Some More

Posted in #religion, 2006-01-15:

<TheWoozle> o/ I went to the doctor, I went to the mountain /o
<TheWoozle> o/ I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain /o
<TheWoozle> o/ There's more than one answer to these questions -- pointing in a crooked line. /o
<TheWoozle> o/ And the less I seek my source for some definitive -- the closer I am to fine. /o
<TheWoozle> -- Indigo Girls

(We were talking about how the church has The Truth, and all we humans can do is try to understand it. I find that the less you try to find The Truth, especially from one source that claims a monopoly, the more sense it makes when you do find it. Or something like that.)