- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think we have seen several times that the church authorities tend to frown on intellectuals. The September 6 is a good example (although I realize there appears to have been some softening lately). I read over some of the letters to a sociologist in Cuba from the FP decades ago that cautioned him to not lean on the ideas of learned men if they conflicted with divine revelation (he questioned the priesthood ban). I find this anti-intellectualism difficult to swallow given all the research I’ve been doing in my own PhD studies. I see the rigor with which many researchers validate their measuring instruments, design their experiments, etcetera — and to hear of current research being written off because it conflicts with the ideas of church leaders, disturbs me.
What do you think should be the role of research findings in influencing our belief systems, even when the conclusions from the research conflicts with prevailing thought from the LDS leadership?
SilentDawning wrote:What do you think should be the role of research findings in influencing our belief systems, even when the conclusions from the research conflicts with prevailing thought from the LDS leadership?
What a provocative question! I must weigh in on this. I think there are several areas of research that should inform our belief systems.
1. Research into church history. This is vitally important for all sorts of reasons. To be able to understand how the Church works–and why it has to be dragged kicking and screaming at every juncture of history–it is helpful to read Quinn’s research into the evolution of church governance. But more importantly, research into Joseph Smith’s personal history has helped me to have a better idea of what his actual spiritual experiences were and weren’t. I need this badly because I have had many powerful spiritual events and they don’t have any parallels in the official version of his life story and what the official story would imply about his spiritual learning curve.
2. Research into scripture, both in terms of BOM/POGP as well as the Bible. We as a church have many of the same misconceptions of Biblical interpretation as Protestants do. Understanding that the New Testament was written many years after Christ’s death has actually helped me to better appreciate the role of the BOM as inspired literature (even if it may be fictional). I’d rather rely on scripture written by a spiritually insightful person which I believe JS was in our time, rather than rely solely on a culturally corrupted account of Jesus in the NT.
3. Research into the workings of the brain. It is clear to me that our spirituality is essentially mental. I am not saying there is nothing beyond the veil that is actually physically real; I am saying that our perception and understanding of these things is skewed by limitations of consciousness. Among many other possibilities, neurological research will give us a better sense of how we really make decisions and lead to a very different conception of agency and sin.
4. Archaelogical and geological research debunking traditional Mormon beliefs about history, including the BOM. This does not mean that the educated Latter-Day Saint should necessarily assume that humans evolved as is now commonly believed by scientifically-educated people. But the starting point for any conjecture about our past cannot rely on 19th-century beliefs about the age of the Earth that Mormons borrowed from contemporary Protestantism.
5. Research into the sociology and psychology of group association. There are so many LDS assumptions about our own group dynamics that I suspect are not valid. Why does the Church have so much turnover among converts? Is it simply because they fall away into sin or is it because of inherent limitations in our participatory model? Does the conformity of LDS society drive out certain personalities, such as creative types?
The willingness to face what research might prove is one of the hardest acts of deconstruction. It is a process that I continue even as I affirm my belief in the Church and its unique purpose in the world. Thanks, SilentDawning, for bringing this up.
Great question. I believe there is at some expectation on the part of the leadership that we exercise our faith by believing what they say (Whether by my own mouth…, etc.). Of course, sometimes what they say flies in the face of conventional wisdom and just as often so in the face of research. I wager the vast majority of believing members wouldn’t care if there was specific and irrefutable evidence that the Book of Mormon could not be what we believe it to be and there really were no gold plates, that they would still believe it to be “the most correct book” based on their spiritual experiences. Many of us lesser believers would agree with them, actually. While I personally think scholarly/intellectual research is of great value in general, I don’t think it trumps what most people would consider to be spirituality in their minds. Also, not all intellectuality and research is without bias. Whenever I read any scientific (or more often social science) research article the first thing I look at is who funded it. While some who fund such things will honestly report the findings even if it wasn’t what they were looking for, I don’t believe the majority do – they either don’t report or skew the evidence to make it look as though it proved what they wanted (“there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”). So, while I find intellectual research to be of value myself, and such has helped my own thinking to evolve, I don’t think any amount of research will change my core values and for many people that would include their spirituality. I think it’s worth the effort to pin down a definition of the word “intellectual.” The church promotes education as a lifelong pursuit, the glory of god is intelligence, etc. I think one only becomes an “intellectual” if they believe a teaching that is at odds with a current doctrine or something a church leader has said in a talk or article. One thing that I’ve learned as I’ve struggled to become more intelligent… I find the more I think I’ve learned the more I realize that I don’t know anything. To me that helps preserve the balance.
SilentDawning wrote:What do you think should be the role of research findings in influencing our belief systems, even when the conclusions from the research conflicts with prevailing thought from the LDS leadership?
Research findings are fluid, they change, but the nice thing is that over time research tends to converge on truth, like a limit in mathematics.
The classic argument I always hear in the great science vs. religion debate is that religion is ridiculed because it vehemently taught that the Earth is flat. I look at it a bit differently. At some point in time the prevailing science of the day made the conclusion that the Earth was flat, then religion adopted it as doctrine/teaching. Oops. As religious teaching becomes the unchanging word of god, the same yesterday, today, and forever. The teaching must be defended from the evil influences of the world but the teaching really represents a fixed snapshot in time of scientific discovery. Meanwhile science is free to move on to make further observations, new science becomes that evil worldly influence.
That’s one reason I’d rather not see religion espouse scientific findings in our day, we’d just end up with another scientific snapshot to burn people at the stake over generations from now.
That’s one of the reasons that I think the church would do well to focus more on teaching the things that science cannot disprove. Will science one day disprove service, love, charity? I guess the church and LDS leadership inherited the baggage of having explained the origins of the Earth, people also go to them for answers about the universe that surrounds us, etc. but it would be nice for leadership to focus on the doctrines that change lives for the better as opposed to teachings related to the physics of our day.
To break things up. Here are some issues (scriptures) that I’ve had to deal with as I’ve blindly moved forward. Isaiah 55:8-9 wrote:For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
This one is obvious. What do I do with new information that challenges one or more of my current beliefs? Continue to believe and tell myself that right now it’s just a matter of not understanding god or his ways? I believe that conclusion led me to place doubts on that proverbial shelf. As with many of you the shelf that held my doubts at bay eventually gave way. Like two sides of the same coin… in the past I had faith in god and placed doubt on a shelf. I now find it difficult to believe in god but scriptures like these make me place faith on a shelf. I wonder if one day the shelf that holds back all my faith will give way?
There are other scriptures but they aren’t really related to this topic, so I’ll leave them for now.
I am not quite sure the question SD. Is it based on values? Or just taking facts and evidenced learned? The scriptures can be helpful and hurtful. I have based my life on the “good fruit”. I’m doing so I made myself a target of aggression inside the church. Simply because I would never accept something being taught or interpreted as something I must do even if it is bad fruit because it is gods will, without a doubt that is the worst concept ever to come from anyone in history. Good fruit or bad fruit is the best concept to come from our history. To judge something by its fruit and not a theatrical fruit(which is pointless since it can’t be observed). In they sense is where I put the scoot urea or church to use. I can try something apply it and see what grows from it. I think that trumps any book or sentence by anyone at any time. Authority or not it all yields to good fruit. The science jumps in they can help us understand good fruit better with good research or discoveries. A good scienctist isn’t about proving what but discovering what can be proven.
Most important is the word faith. Faith is the evidence NOT seen. The hope for things.
When one discovers something new or contradictory with ample evidence it no longer is something not scene. It becomes seen. When something is done that result in bad fruit why would a person HOPE in it. They wouldn’t. But if it bares forth good fruit they would. Therefore no matter the book in any time or place, no matter who said what before in any time or place it must yield to the pile of evidence and good fruit. It overrides anything and anyone.
We take the scriptures seriously and prophets seriously. But they do not override that. To take anyone’s word, from any book or time over the mountain of evidence and good fruit… From anyone —
It no longer is faith. It can’t be. You’ve seen it, bad fruit is not something hoped for.
It can’t be faith in any way shape or form… It is now become dogma. Not faith.
Doing so reasons as a child— a child reasons the reason you should do something is “because “.
Because is not a reason. Saying “god said so” or because a research with good evidence tries to say so. Neither is good. Neither is a reason to do anything. It’s all based on good fruit in a persons life. To do something in spite of good or bad fruit is not something a species of intelligence does.
So yes, it friends on good research and discoveries. For one can not put faith in something contrary. As it becomes “seen” and is half the equation of faith. The other half being hope. It must meet both criteria to really be faith.
But in light of empirical evidence and a lack of fruit the scriptures are are great worth and so are the words of great leaders including the prophets. That is what they are for. In the absence of unproven or lack of evidence of fruit we place our faith in the concepts presented. But to do so inspire of the fruit or evidence presented is not faith I’m any definition.
So all things and all people yield to good fruit and good imperical evidence.
That is what I go by now. It trumps anyone and anything at any time. As it should.
The wide research and evidence by many good scientist should trump everything but good fruit.
Even prophets have to yield to good fruit though. The problem is many people belief what they want to belief inspire of good evidence or fruit –using words like faith. That is not faith. Faith is what is not seen and hoped for. I wouldn’t hope in anything with bad fruit, nor believe in something opposite to what I have “SEEN”. There in Is a place for and absolute need for good science.
I sometimes can’t speak precisely what I mean and it comes out wrong. If this is the case here my apologies. It is basis I have learned after having many bad things happen to me in the name of “obedience” to god weather or not it neared forth good fruit. I now hold such beliefs to be from a lack of critical thinking and refusal to accept that current are past interpreting are wring or wrong for that individual. There is no honor or integrity in that position. A position on either end to hold by something weather it bears forth good fruit. In the event it does or does not I trust the fruit more then the person, book or teaching in any part of life. In doing so a person or at least me gains self esteem back and self worth along with honor and integrity.
I believe that Church leaders should encourage members to pay more attention to current research, not less. While it’s important to “follow the money” in doing that, as Dark Jedi said, I think that many areas of current research can actually strengthen testimony. Here’s an example: when I was in a particularly “no god exists” phase, I felt so liberated and began to study and follow prevailing scientific research, especially in regard to astrophysics. An amazing thing happened with some aspects of that and I came to believe that there has to be a creator or “God” of some kind. I’m still trying to work out what form that takes, but having that scientific foundation will make my faith stronger, not weaker. I’ve seen too many things in my life that can’t be explained by science or the prevailing wisdom of the day. The same is true for my feelings on evolution which run somewhere between the traditional Darwinian model and the literal 6000 year traditional Christian model. I’m waiting for the third theory that actually makes sense to me. This doesn’t mean that I think the church should change and conform every time some new theory comes out. That’s what most other churches are doing and they are losing members because you have to have basic core beliefs to hold on to, and some things just have to be faced in faith. The problem with the way our church currently handles is that they discourage “intellectualism” and that just makes people think they have something to hide. If the teachings the church are true and all truth leads toward God, what are they afraid of?
I think we aren’t in the church of my youth anymore. Having said that, I think the concern, especially now that scholarship is being supported actively, always has been an imbalance between “intellectualism” and “spiritualism” (and the attendant issue of humility) – especially since the top church leadership has been saying to get as much education as possible for quite some time. Our theology teaches we are dual in nature, not just smart animals, I think the top leadership draws a clear distinction between being intelligent (or increasing in intelligence) and being an intellectual. One suggests growing in knowledge and understanding, ever open to on-going “revelation” (meaning continually having new things uncovered), while the other suggests a smarter-than-you mentality of smugness, ridicule and condescension.
Of course, the irony is that sometimes church leaders themselves have become intellectuals in the sense of getting hardcore dogmatic about certain topics and closing their minds to new information that would change their paradigm. For example: Pres. Packer has been wonderful about certain things, but he has held tightly to older ideas concerning sexual matters (e.g., I’m not sure he really believes the newest change in how the Church has accepted homosexuality as natural for many people); Elder Oaks tends to preach in legalistic terms and comes across as “colder” and more “intellectual” than some of the other apostles; Elder McConkie was the poster child for that kind of impression (“I am right; I know I’m right by the sheer brilliance of my intellect.”), whether or not he actually was prideful.
I love education and am proud of my own education (in the Uchtdorfian sense of that word
🙂 ), but I don’t have a problem with the idea, in general, of avoiding a pompous attitude and valuing the spiritual – in its rightful place. I have a huge problem with denying scientific discovery and backing stupidity, but I try hard to maintain what I believe to be a proper balance between my heart and my mind – to not be only an intellectual in that sense.I agree with Ray. I think no man has said it better and provided more truth and good fruit in this subject then Galileo. Quote:It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:If I were again beginning my studies, I would follow the advice of Plato and start with mathematics.
Galileo Galilei
Quote:The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.
Galileo Galilei
nibbler wrote:Will science one day disprove service, love, charity?
Actually, Nibbler, yes. The 21st century is going to see an explosion of scientific findings about the neurological basis of who we are in terms of our self-consciousness, how we think, what we do. I expect that we will find out that a lot of values we thought were universally applicable are not. For example, let’s say we have a paradigm of love that is embodied in certain people that we greatly admire at church, and we want people to emulate that example of love. How do we even know that that particular manifestation of love is not rooted in genetics, brain chemistry, or childhood environment? If it is, we may be wasting our efforts trying to get everyone else to follow that example. I myself have stopped trying to pattern my own sense of charity on those people who are commonly admired in the ward. Don’t get me wrong–I care a lot about other people and I don’t have a lack of love in my heart, but it always seems to come out differently.
That is just one small example. Most if not all of the things that we think science cannot “disprove” will eventually be either explained or at least put in context. When that day comes, we will have to rethink such basic concepts as agency, sin, love, accountability, and many others.
Quote:All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:What lies behind you and what lies in front of you, pales in comparison to what lies inside of you.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not seen.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:Character is higher than intellect. A great soul will be strong to live as well as think.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:Never lose an opportunity of seeing anything beautiful, for beauty is God’s handwriting.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:With the past, I have nothing to do; nor with the future. I live now.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The value of all things
Quote:What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have never been discovered.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Stay LDS Moto.
Quote:A chief event of life is the day in which we have encountered a mind that startled us.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quote:When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.
John Muir
In regards to what we can learn from science. These beautiful, fruit bearing and time tested truths.
convert1992 wrote:nibbler wrote:Will science one day disprove service, love, charity?
Actually, Nibbler, yes. The 21st century is going to see an explosion of scientific findings about the neurological basis of who we are in terms of our self-consciousness, how we think, what we do. I expect that we will find out that a lot of values we thought were universally applicable are not. For example, let’s say we have a paradigm of love that is embodied in certain people that we greatly admire at church, and we want people to emulate that example of love. How do we even know that that particular manifestation of love is not rooted in genetics, brain chemistry, or childhood environment? If it is, we may be wasting our efforts trying to get everyone else to follow that example. I myself have stopped trying to pattern my own sense of charity on those people who are commonly admired in the ward. Don’t get me wrong–I care a lot about other people and I don’t have a lack of love in my heart, but it always seems to come out differently.
That is just one small example. Most if not all of the things that we think science cannot “disprove” will eventually be either explained or at least put in context. When that day comes, we will have to rethink such basic concepts as agency, sin, love, accountability, and many others.
That the perception of right and wrong and the “judged” severity of it is based in this part if the brain and it’s development.
I believe one of the things he is talking about Roy is found here.
118.145.16.229:81/Jweb_xlxb/EN/abstract/abstract14256.shtml ” class=”bbcode_url”> 118.145.16.229:81/Jweb_xlxb/EN/abstract/abstract14256.shtml http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6753.full.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6753.full.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”> Especially telling in children ages 6-10. As it is developing and their perception of right and wrong as it develops. But even so for adults in how it developed.
That moral judgement and the severity of the “crime” is based on its development. Shows our choices of the severity if right or wrong is based more on the perception of intent by that part of the brain then in a persons belief system.
Two key elements of the belief system and faith are experience and choice. Intellectual study, finding facts, and the ability to think logically are great inputs that influence us. But at some point, no matter how much research is done, I choose to believe or I don’t. Much of that is based on my experience and my trust.
I see no conflict with intellectual study and my belief system, as long as I don’t conflate issues. My beliefs are held by me in probabilities of certainty, enough probability I can make choices to act, or too low of a probability and I suspend judgment.
DarkJedi wrote:Also, not all intellectuality and research is without bias. Whenever I read any scientific (or more often social science) research article the first thing I look at is who funded it. While some who fund such things will honestly report the findings even if it wasn’t what they were looking for, I don’t believe the majority do – they either don’t report or skew the evidence to make it look as though it proved what they wanted (“there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”).
I am currently taking a class on scientific research. In my tiny bit of exposure to how this works, I am learning that publishing your work usually requires that you adhere to rigorous standards and methodology. Then, once you are published, your work is out there for the entire scientific community to critique, confirm through replication, or expand upon.
That is not to say that there haven’t been some bad research studies nor that some studies with adverse findings might not get self-censored. But the joy of the scientific process is that it is a method for discovering and testing new truths. Eventually old ideas are abandoned as new discoveries replace them. There is a process in place to ferret out the errors over time.
Of course the trustworthiness of stuff that gets reported on the internet may or may not have any real connection to scientific research.
nibbler wrote:That’s one of the reasons that I think the church would do well to focus more on teaching the things that science cannot disprove. Will science one day disprove service, love, charity? I guess the church and LDS leadership inherited the baggage of having explained the origins of the Earth, people also go to them for answers about the universe that surrounds us, etc. but it would be nice for leadership to focus on the doctrines that change lives for the better as opposed to teachings related to the physics of our day.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:When one discovers something new or contradictory with ample evidence it no longer is something not scene. It becomes seen. When something is done that result in bad fruit why would a person HOPE in it. They wouldn’t. But if it bares forth good fruit they would. Therefore no matter the book in any time or place, no matter who said what before in any time or place it must yield to the pile of evidence and good fruit.
Good points! This is why I like the new LDS.org article on becomming like God. 1) it reads like good fruit which can be observed now AND hoped for in the future. 2) It is not something that will be disproven by science. Even darwinian evolution would not negate the hope of divine spiritual parentage.Curtis wrote:Of course, the irony is that sometimes church leaders themselves have become intellectuals in the sense of getting hardcore dogmatic about certain topics and closing their minds to new information that would change their paradigm.
Another good point. From that perspective the phrase “so called intellectuals” is an “intellectual”/haughty thing to say because it disparages whole swaths of people and fields of study that disagree with your conclusions. In Hawkgirl’s glossary of religious terms “So called” was code for “I sneer at whatever comes after this word.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.