Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
1st Approach: Science
- Science ventures into the unknown with eyes wide open
- Science makes observations about what they see
- Science builds models based on their observations, and test them
- Science reworks its models based on new observations
- Science is the honest approach
2nd Approach: Philosphy
- Philosophers are not entirely satisfied with our limited observations made through science
- Philosophers draw conclusions from scientific observations, and based on those conclusions attempt to direct scientists to make specific observations about the unknown
- Philosophers then rework their philosophies based on new findings or new ideas
- Philosophy is the creative approach
3rd Approach: Religion
- Religions neither make observations about the unknown, nor do they base their ideas on others' observations
- Religions claim to know what the unknown really is and attempt to convince others of their claims
- When scientists make observations about the unknown that clearly contradict the religious claims, religions just ignore them
- Religion is the lazy approach
- I would also say religion is the dishonest approach
- Science ventures into the unknown with eyes wide open
- Science makes observations about what they see
- Science builds models based on their observations, and test them
- Science reworks its models based on new observations
- Science is the honest approach
2nd Approach: Philosphy
- Philosophers are not entirely satisfied with our limited observations made through science
- Philosophers draw conclusions from scientific observations, and based on those conclusions attempt to direct scientists to make specific observations about the unknown
- Philosophers then rework their philosophies based on new findings or new ideas
- Philosophy is the creative approach
3rd Approach: Religion
- Religions neither make observations about the unknown, nor do they base their ideas on others' observations
- Religions claim to know what the unknown really is and attempt to convince others of their claims
- When scientists make observations about the unknown that clearly contradict the religious claims, religions just ignore them
- Religion is the lazy approach
- I would also say religion is the dishonest approach
Just an observation; 3rd Approach: Religion is, in my observation the most common one relating to "the unKnown" as in an after life, for instance - it's ancient also.
I think they all are, equally.
For example, how can a seed grow into a tree?
Science says, "We don't know. That's unknown. Let's watch and find out."
Philosophy says, "Hmm, we don't know. That's unknown. It's probably the same way anything grows. When it gets planted it eats stuff in the soil and grows up to be a tree. Let's see what the scientists find out."
Religion says, "because god wanted to make it easier for Noah to save trees on the ark, so he made the baby trees into seeds."
It's an unknown to everybody, but they all approach it differently.
For example, how can a seed grow into a tree?
Science says, "We don't know. That's unknown. Let's watch and find out."
Philosophy says, "Hmm, we don't know. That's unknown. It's probably the same way anything grows. When it gets planted it eats stuff in the soil and grows up to be a tree. Let's see what the scientists find out."
Religion says, "because god wanted to make it easier for Noah to save trees on the ark, so he made the baby trees into seeds."
It's an unknown to everybody, but they all approach it differently.
Excellent! Are you quoting someone or is this your own composition?
Nope, thought of this while reading the thread about science not knowing how life got started. I was like, "nobody does, especially religion.."
That was my thread and I agree with kolobian's descriptions of those approaches. I've calmed down now after a trip to Walmart. While walking around that store I began to wonder about Darwin's theory concerning survival of the fittest. That store always confirms my doubts about the human race.
"Religions neither make observations about the unknown, nor do they base their ideas on others' observations."
COMMENT: This is false. Religious persons do make observations about the unknown. However, such observations allow for "spiritual insight" which they believe has as much or more validity as the "observations" of standard physcial sense data. If you believe that this is not a legitimate "observation" or not appropriately "evidence," then you need another argument as to why a person's non-perceptual insights have no relevance as evidence for religious conclusions. (Also, religious people do base their ideas on other's observations, or experiences.)
"Religions claim to know what the unknown really is and attempt to convince others of their claims."
COMMENT: True, just as scientists do.
"When scientists make observations about the unknown that clearly contradict the religious claims, religions just ignore them.
COMMENT: Not true, generally. Most religions, and religious people generally, believe in evolution, a round earth, and that the earth revolves around the sun. So, what observations have scientists made that the vast majority of the religious have ignored? Any examples?
"Religion is the lazy approach."
COMMENT: Ridiculously unfair. Most religious people try to reconcile science and their religious faith, which takes intellectual effort. Mormons in particular are science oriented, which explains why they try (unsuccessfully) to spin everything in an attempt to have it make sense scientifically.
"I would also say religion is the dishonest approach."
COMMENT: No. A dishonest approach is making sweeping generalizations about religious people for the sole purpose of putting them in a negative light and creating the falsle impression that they are lazy and dishonest.
Kolobian. You are better that this. Think it through!
COMMENT: This is false. Religious persons do make observations about the unknown. However, such observations allow for "spiritual insight" which they believe has as much or more validity as the "observations" of standard physcial sense data. If you believe that this is not a legitimate "observation" or not appropriately "evidence," then you need another argument as to why a person's non-perceptual insights have no relevance as evidence for religious conclusions. (Also, religious people do base their ideas on other's observations, or experiences.)
"Religions claim to know what the unknown really is and attempt to convince others of their claims."
COMMENT: True, just as scientists do.
"When scientists make observations about the unknown that clearly contradict the religious claims, religions just ignore them.
COMMENT: Not true, generally. Most religions, and religious people generally, believe in evolution, a round earth, and that the earth revolves around the sun. So, what observations have scientists made that the vast majority of the religious have ignored? Any examples?
"Religion is the lazy approach."
COMMENT: Ridiculously unfair. Most religious people try to reconcile science and their religious faith, which takes intellectual effort. Mormons in particular are science oriented, which explains why they try (unsuccessfully) to spin everything in an attempt to have it make sense scientifically.
"I would also say religion is the dishonest approach."
COMMENT: No. A dishonest approach is making sweeping generalizations about religious people for the sole purpose of putting them in a negative light and creating the falsle impression that they are lazy and dishonest.
Kolobian. You are better that this. Think it through!