fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Of course I am not implying that. All I'm implying is that it is laughable when someone tries to justify the contradictions that exist between Mormonism and currently accepted scientific theories by saying that scientists just don't "have a full grasp" of what they're talking about.

It isn't the philosophical implications of quantum physics we're talking here. The scientific evidence that contradicts some Mormon dogmas is pretty damn elementary.

AYRT

I will admit that I have next to no knowledge of Mormon dogma. I am curious if your objection to the OP's comment was specifically because they are Mormon, or an objection to idea of any sort of religious belief being able to be reconciled with scientifically proven facts?

I ask because I have noticed an underlying strain of hypocrisy that runs through discourse which pits religion against science and rejects any possibility of the two being compatible. It seems to me that often people who are very staunchly anti-religion will criticize Christians* for adhering to bigoted and hateful belief systems based on the most literal interpretations of their texts. However, these same anti-religion people will then dismiss or even mock any suggestion that religious beliefs might not be entirely incompatible with science, and base their objection to such suggestions on the most literal interpretations of whichever religious text they are arguing against (usually but not always the Christian bible).

To give an example from this very thread, an anon above said "Any which way you can twist it to justify it" in response to the idea that the Abrahamic God does not perceive time the same way as humans. If we are to assume, as the Abrahamic religions do, that there is a single omnipotent god who created the universe and whose nature is beyond the understanding of humans, is it really so ridiculous to think that such a being might experience time in a manner beyond our understanding?

*And religious people in general, but Christians do tend to get most of the focus in these sorts of discussions

It's the Alice's Restaurant problem--you can get anything you want. If you say that an intelligent being created the universe, you can give it any possible attributes, and these attributes can be used to explain any state the universe exists in. There's no way intelligent design can be proven false, and that's what sets it apart from the scientific community's focus on falsifiable claims. (Wel, most of the scientific community, as any critic of string theory will tell you.)

AYRT

"If you say that an intelligent being created the universe, you can give it any possible attributes, and these attributes can be used to explain any state the universe exists in."

And that is precisely the point I'm trying to make.

The issue I have with the usual iterations of "religion vs. science" argument is that they more often than not refuse to take into account that because religious dogma is not grounded in scientific fact, it can be and has been reshaped and reinterpreted to conform to scientific fact.

It's usually the other way around: rather than shape religious dogma to conform to scientific fact, scientific fact is twisted and warped to conform to religious dogma.

Or do I have to remind you of "shutting that whole thing down."

"Or do I have to remind you of "shutting that whole thing down."

I have no idea what you're referring to here. Is this an American thing?

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 23:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-25 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-25 23:17 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

diet_poison - 2015-10-25 23:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-26 03:27 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

diet_poison - 2015-10-26 14:17 (UTC) - Expand

It's usually the other way around: rather than shape religious dogma to conform to scientific fact, scientific fact is twisted and warped to conform to religious dogma.

No. Usually it's a religious person doing standard accepted science and then shrugging and saying "but god too." Is it provable? No. But I don't see why it really matters if nobody's being a dick about it.

Somehow I went to a catholic college full of good stem programs that involved priests as professors but I suppose they must have all been closet atheists or something. I mean otherwise there'd be theology on the exams right? Believers can't compartmentalize it's unpossible

Edited 2015-10-26 05:15 (UTC)

Re: Okay, here's the problem with that.

dethtoll - 2015-10-26 05:34 (UTC) - Expand

Intelligent design - er, Creationism, to be pedantic - cannot be proven false. Like the whole "the Earth is 6,000 years old and humanity started from two people literally made out of the ground" thing can, but the simple idea that a higher power who is beyond our understanding exists and has influenced our world in some way actually can't. It can't be proven true, either. It's not actually a scientific belief. It annoys me when people (on either side of the debate) pretend that it is.

This may be what you're actually saying, in which case disregard, lol.

Yeah, I was saying that it's not falsifiable. The thing is, it seems like it slots into beliefs that do affect the world. It would be great if people said "Nature is God's creation! We must protect it!" But what I've heard seems more like "Nature is God's creation! If the world is getting warmer, that's God's will!"

Gotcha!

It would be great if people said "Nature is God's creation! We must protect it!"

I could not agree more. One of many reasons I'm disappointed in and disillusioned with organized religion despite still being a religious person.

Creationism means "God created the earth/universe/etc". That has been proven wrong. Now religious people who are really set on having a supernatural being have a hand in the universe's conception have to water it down to "well maybe God started the Big Bang" etc. Except science figures out more and more every day about how the universe likely "banged" into being, and virtually every previous claim about a deity "creating" the universe has been proven wrong.

Creationism means "God created the earth/universe/etc". That has been proven wrong.

...nnno, it hasn't. You can't scientifically prove or disprove a spiritual assertion.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

kitelovesyou - 2015-10-26 02:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

diet_poison - 2015-10-26 14:20 (UTC) - Expand

It is possible for some religious views to be compatible with science. It's totally possible to accept evolution as one of the many tools your favored deity has given nature.

But it's totally incidental for religion and inconsequential for science.

If it's inconsequential, then whey are so many people so vehemently opposed to it?

You ask that as if some people rejecting the idea that religious dogma can safely incorporate some scientific principles is somehow meaningful to science as an enterprise and a body of knowledge. it isn't.

Of course it isn't meaningful to science. It's meaningful to people would like to be able to have serious, in-depth discourse about this without being shut down every fucking time by some edgelord completely ignoring the points they make in favour of spouting "LOL CHRISTUNS R DELUSONAL WIF THER SKYDADY! RELIGIN IS LIE EVOLUTION IS BETR LOL!" ad nauseum.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 22:59 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-25 23:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 23:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-25 23:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

diet_poison - 2015-10-25 23:56 (UTC) - Expand

Ehh, as someone who has some knowledge of ecology as a discipline, I'll have to disagree. Unfortunately, some people rejecting the idea that religious dogma can incorporate scientific principles can be VERY consequential for science as an enterprise.

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dreemyweird - 2015-10-25 23:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 23:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dreemyweird - 2015-10-25 23:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Mormon-anon here.

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 23:26 (UTC) - Expand

If it's inconsequential, then whey are so many people so vehemently opposed to it?

Do you mean why are so many non-religious proponents of science threatened by religious views about the universe?

I think it's partly the long bitter fight over epistemology - what are the sources of our knowledge? Many religious people think that where science and religion appear to conflict, that religion should come first. Vice versa for many proponents of science. Religion used to punish scientists who came to discoveries that conflicted with religion. Religion in many places seeks to suppress scientific teachings now. However, scientific teachings are in most places these days privileged above religious teachings that would conflict with them. However, scientists, seeing science as the number one source of truth about observable reality, are still bitter about various religious agendas seeking to suppress them.

Many proponents of science, especially many atheists, mistakenly think that the scientific method can completely encompass all knowledge. It can't. Only falsifiable observations. So religious statements about truth are seen ipso facto as a direct contradiction to science. They aren't, if they aren't about falsifiable theories! Science can say nothing about the existence of an intelligent deity or not, only that it isn't necessary to explain the world around us. (Which is another reason why so many religious people are threatened by science.)

Yes, I was objecting specifically to Mormonism. I agree that religious dogma in the broad sense of the term can be compatible with science (although its spirit is not compatible with the spirit of scientific enquiry). Mormons, however, believe in a whole lot of harmful anti-scientific rubbish, including divine healing and visions.

Sadly I can tell you that the divine healing and visions stuff is inherited from some Christian beliefs.

Once got dragged to a faith healing session. Very very Protestant (don't remember which denomination) and full of evangelical I TOUCH YOUR FOREHEAD WHILE SPEAKING IN 'TONGUES' AND YOU WILL BE HEALED!!!!!!!!!

LOL, I know. I was raised in a Christian Orthodox environment, and some of the Orthodox beliefs I witnessed were fucking batshit. One of my school teachers actually believed in healing.

But what do you want. This was a country which only a decade prior had mass-bought into the idea that a guy could heal people via his TV show.

I like to think that the conflicts I see between my religion and science regarding the creation are because humanity (myself included) doesn't have a full grasp on either subject.

For my part, this doesn't read as simply "you can be a scientist and a believer". It seems to say to me "the uncertainty in science allows for the certain beliefs we have in creation". Certainly, much of it can be vaguely reconciled, if you don't take many of the religious beliefs at face value (like 6 days). Ideas such as the fact that God created everything on a spiritual plane first before the physical, are beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. They are not scientific questions, not relying on observation. They are fully compatible with science. (Occam's Razor is why a lot of scientists are non-believers, but of course not all.) However, from what I understand of Mormonism - there are facts about Mormon creation that are not open to interpretation, that science does NOT support. (Such as Adam and Eve. Yes? No?)

Humanity doesn't have a full grasp on science, it's true. We don't know everything. But we can very confidently say what we DO know, and it can't be handwaved away in favour of any old alternative interpretation you can come up with. Not being certain of everything doesn't mean that we can say humans spontaneously appeared on earth without descending from earlier proto-humans, for instance.

Technically, in science, we can never PROVE anything. We can only DISPROVE it. This is why gravity is only a "theory". This "theory" has put people on the moon and back, however. Science is an interplay of deductive and inductive reasoning, and there is always some technical uncertainty in this interplay. Perhaps on the 1000000000000000000000th observation, gravity will finally be disproven! Something will fall UP instead! This isn't the type of uncertainty the OP appears to hope for.

I dunno that much about Mormonism, but other than that (and I'm not disagreeing with you on that, just saying IDK) this is a really good comment.

Oh thankyou. I'm glad you understood it, when I'm tired my ability to be coherent kind of goes out the window!

That's pretty good for tired! :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only