quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because religion often talks about things that science cannot, like how to live a better life. What is a better life to the scientific way of thinking?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There are people who study the science of ethics and such. It's daring work that I don't really understand, and I hope them the best in their attempts to overcome the ought-is problem.

But I would say that you can find ways to live a better life without any religion. You cannot however build an airplane without science.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To be honest, if you find a good way to live, that is religion.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think that's true at all. Religion requires rigor, worship, and established traditions to be religion.

Otherwise it's just vague "spirituality"

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because religion often talks about things that science cannot, like how to live a better life. What is a better life to the scientific way of thinking?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No! You are wrong. You are not talking about religion. Religion is far more fundamental to human existence.

That is way I say atheists are religious.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To be honest, if you find a good way to live, that is religion. Everything else is just humans piling on.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No! You are wrong. You are not talking about religion. Religion is far more fundamental to human existence.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Mindset
Science is for bitches.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No! You are wrong. You are not talking about religion. Religion is far more fundamental to human existence.

That is way I say atheists are religious.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There are people who study the science of ethics and such. It's daring work that I don't really understand, and I hope them the best in their attempts to overcome the ought-is problem.

But I would say that you can find ways to live a better life without any religion. You cannot however build an airplane without science.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To be honest, if you find a good way to live, that is religion. Everything else is just humans piling on.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAPqwOV8zn8

quote:

Evidences And Reconciliations, John A. Widtsoe

_Evidences And Reconciliations
_5. CAN THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD BE EMPLOYED IN RELIGION?
Civilization and enlightenment have come when men, using the experimental method, have begun to test the correctness of their beliefs. The highway to truth is paved with such rigid tests.
On the contrary, the black cloud of superstition and confusion, twin enemies of progress, has obscured human vision when untested opinions or unverified claims or personal guesses have ruled human actions, or when assumed authority has claimed precedence over patient inquiry. The blind acceptance of unsupported statements, or placing theories upon a pedestal for human worship, has always been a source of sorrow.
Whenever men have set up devices or experiments to test the validity of their opinions, whenever men have demanded proofs of the verity of offered teachings, the world has moved forward. To test current beliefs, Galileo dropped stones of unequal weights from a height; Lavoisier weighed mercury before and after heating; Pasteur filtered air through tufts of cotton; Lister washed wounds with a solution of carbolic acid—and each destroyed a false belief and revealed a new truth: stones of all sizes fall through the air with equal velocity; mercury becomes heavier when heated in air; microscopic living things, in the air, are often capable of injury to man; in wounds are germs which if not destroyed may delay healing. Out of each of these experiments a vast volume of truth has grown. Our civilization rests upon innumerable such experiments.
The same principle appears in the field of living things, from animals to men. The complex relationships of social living must be tested for their value, if the path of safety is to be found. Though experimentation in this field is somewhat more difficult because of the human will (the power to accept or reject) yet, for example, the desirability of organization, cooperation, and democracy, and the ill effects of autocracy, tyranny, and dictatorships, have been demonstrated by actual trial.
Spiritual principles that affect human life, are likewise subject to experiment. Prayer, attendance at Church meetings, the Word of Wisdom, tithing are but remote beliefs until put into practice and thus tested for their value. Intelligent man cannot pass worth-while opinion on these and other principles until he has tried them himself or observed their effects on others.
Authority, itself, must bow before the experimental method. The reality of authority is best established by the efficacy of that which it declares and commands. Authority which is not willing to submit to such a test may well be questioned. There are today innumerable fantastic cults, leading thousands astray, which have no foundation beyond the unsupported claims of their originators.
This does not mean that the experimental method is the only approach to truth, but that it is one of the most important. Nor does it mean that every man must get drunk to learn the evils of alcohol. Human experience is filled with the sad examples of those who have toyed with evil and have been destroyed by it. We can learn from the experience of others, as from our own, as to that which is good or evil.
We can also learn from those wiser than we are. But in accepting guidance from them we must be certain of their wisdom.
The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ advises men to test its truths in human life. It approves distinctly of the experimental method. The Savior laid down the principle in a luminous statement: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16, 17) On another occasion He repeated the thought: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." (John 10:37, 38) The words of the Apostle Paul, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21), are of the same import. There is constant advice in the scriptures to let the effects of gospel living be evidence of its truth, as for example: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16); or "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." (I Peter 2:12)
Joseph Smith, the Prophet, recognized this method of testing truth. He read the words of James, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5); and, believing in God, he went into the grove to test the reality of the promise there made. Thus came the great First Vision.
Running through the scriptures is the doctrine that truth as well as untruth may be recognized by its effects, and the counsel is given to test the claims of the gospel by rendering obedience to its principles of action. Obedience itself becomes but a call to do certain things so that certain rewards may be received. Obedience may therefore be counted as a phase of the experimental method.
All should test their religious beliefs. But all such testing must be done in the right spirit and by the right method. Every testing must be a sincere and honest search for truth. The truth or the goodness, not the untruth or the evil, of a system must be sought; then untruth or evil, if it exists, is automatically discovered. There must be no bending of means or methods to bolster up prejudice. An honest seeker after truth must accept truth unhesitatingly when found, and yield full surrender to it. The truth-seeker must be single-minded—for truth. Errors must be thrown out, however appealing they may be to man-made appetites.
The experimental method is applicable and should be used in the field of religion as in every other field of human activity. Only then can a full conviction of its truth be won. "Practicing our religion" is the most direct method of gaining a "testimony of its truth," and that should be the constant concern of every Latter-day Saint.

quote:

Evidences And Reconciliations, John A. Widtsoe
6. CAN FAITH BE BUILT ON THEORIES?
There is danger in confusing facts and theories. Let it not be held, however, that theories are in themselves objectionable. They play an important part in human progress. They are man's best inferential explanations of existing facts. The history of theories is largely the history of the world of thought. They have been steppingstones to the discovery of truth. Only when theories have been held aloft as unchanging facts or guides to life, have they become dangerous in the search for truth.
New facts of observation as discovered either confirm or disprove a theory. When increasing knowledge confirms a theory, that theory approaches the status of an unchanging fact of nature; if such knowledge weakens the theory, the inference must be modified or abandoned. Most theories are forever changing as new truth appears. That is the main reason why one cannot build firmly and finally on a theory, and feel assured that he is on the safe road to truth.
Claudius Ptolemy, an Egyptian astronomer, living about one hundred fifty years after Christ, inferred from the daily movement of the sun from east to west, that the earth was the center of the solar system. This theory ruled for many centuries until an accumulation of observations threw doubt on its correctness. At last, Copernicus, born 1473 A. D., from existing facts concluded that day and night result from the earth's rotation upon its axis. The theory of Ptolemy fell with a crash. The telescope was invented; more observations were recorded. All heavenly bodies were found to be in motion and rotation. Mighty men appeared: Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, and many others. Our new theories of the solar system are supported by all available knowledge. Yet we are ready to change or modify them as new knowledge appears.
The best thinkers among the Greeks believed that fire was an element, the ultimate principle of the universe. In the seventh century after Christ, a careful investigator, Stahl, set up the theory that an inflammable principle, largely immaterial, devoid of weight, escapes from a burning substance. This he called phlogiston. Every combustible body contains, therefore, more or less phlogiston. This theory was accepted by the scientific world only to be overthrown within a hundred years. Lavoisier, called the father of chemistry, showed by a simple experiment that fire is but the energy released where combustible substances combine with the element oxygen.
Modern theories of the structure and origin of the earth, of the structure of matter, of heat, light, disease, population, the mind and man, are but heirs of earlier, mistaken inferences. The history of theories forms one of the most engaging chapters of human progress. No fault is found with those who propose theories, provided they base their theories on existing facts, and treat them as theories and not as facts.
The history of the theory of evolution is an excellent answer to the question at the head of this writing. The theory of evolution, a storm center of thought for many years, has been modified until it is vastly different from its original form. Leaving aside the doctrine that all life has a common beginning (see also pages 150-158), the basic idea in Darwinism was that the many life forms on the earth could be traced back to "natural selection," the "survival of the fittest" in the struggle for existence. Students of life in every department seized avidly upon this explanation of conditions among men and lower animals. Thousands of books and pamphlets in the fields of natural, economic, and social sciences have been based on the theory of natural selection.
During the last generation, however, facts have appeared to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the doctrine of natural selection. Recently, two books, almost epoch-making, written by men of the highest scientific standing, declare natural selection to be insufficient to explain the variety in nature. Moreover, these two notable investigators have proposed new explanations, inferences from their own work and that of others, to replace the doctrine of natural selection.
Dr. Richard Goldschmidt, American scientist, declares, among other things, that "species and the higher categories," originate in single steps, independent of natural selection as "completely new genetic systems." That is, they appear by sudden variation, which is mutation. He adds that he believes such independent appearances to be the result of processes which are very simple. "If life phenomena were not based on very simple principles, no organism could exist." Such views would have been heretical two generations ago.
Dr. J. C. Willis, European scientist, frankly entitles his book The Course of Evolution, "by differentiation or divergent mutation rather than by selection." He concludes that "The process of evolution appears not to be a matter of natural selection or chance variations of adaptational value. Rather, it is working upon some definite law that we do not yet comprehend. The law probably began its operations with the commencement of life, and it is carrying this on according to some definite plan. ... Evolution is no longer a matter of chance, but of law. It has no need of any support from natural selection. ... The theory of natural selection is no longer getting us anywhere, except in politics (the dead hand)." He goes on to argue for the explanation of "the increasing divergencies of characters as one goes up the scale from species to family," by mutation, a law in opposition to natural selection.
In essence these two eminent experimenters and thinkers are in agreement. Future basic changes in the doctrine of evolution may well be expected.
Had the proponents as well as the opponents of evolution, as a whole or in part, kept in mind that they were discussing a theory, subject to frequent and fundamental change, the civilized world would have been spared much unseemly behavior.
Again the warning: Distinguish clearly between facts and the inferences from facts.
Certainly, it is a mistake to accept theories in building faith in anything, from religion to our everyday life pursuits.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What do you do if many independent rigorous tests say Mormonism is wrong and Hinduism is right? Are you ready to discard your religion based on that? Personally I don't believe people who say they're willing to put their faith on the line.