- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Carl Sagan is credited with the following quote Quote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Do you believe this? In my journey from Mormonism I find this a valid argument. We know in science that no one is taken seriously unless they can demonstrate with reliable certainty that their theories are correct. This may be through experimentation that produces the same result each time, or such as in archeology painstakingly assembling a picture of ancient civilizations by studying what they left behind in the way or artifacts. Even then there are always holes in the story.To the contrary things of the spirit seem to not require this same level of evidence. It can just be stated as true or accurate because someone says so. No real evidence required. Yet in so many instances religions hold sway over people much more than science does. Is this a human failing or survival technique or is this truly the way God works in mysterious and unseen ways. To me it is a struggle to have a doctrine that requires such a level of obedience and teaches that your very eternal soul is dependent on living it yet so little tangible evidence supports that position. It is always just a matter of faith. I wish God would have provided a little more understandable evidence for the benefits of his plan.
Cadence wrote:Carl Sagan is credited with the following quote
Quote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Do you believe this? In my journey from Mormonism I find this a valid argument. We know in science that no one is taken seriously unless they can demonstrate with reliable certainty that their theories are correct.…To the contrary things of the spirit seem to not require this same level of evidence. It can just be stated as true or accurate because someone says so. No real evidence required. Yet in so many instances religions hold sway over people much more than science does. Is this a human failing or survival technique or is this truly the way God works in mysterious and unseen ways…
No, religion doesn’t really require irrefutable physical evidence at all and personally I don’t think there is any good reason that undeniable evidence should be required to justify its existence. Mormonism is a classic example of this because we are told about gold plates that were taken back from Joseph Smith and that there was an advanced Hebrew culture in the New World and we are expected to believe all this mostly based on faith, intuition, feelings, etc. On top of that, we have papyrus fragments that have been translated by independent Egyptologists to say something completely different than the text and facsimile comments in the Book of Abraham and our only answer to this problem is that maybe this wasn’t the actual source material or maybe Joseph’s translation was different because the meaning was encoded or hidden somehow, etc.
All we really have here are some fantastic stories told by Joseph Smith and his supporters. As long as people are content to believe things like this without proof or even contrary to much of the available evidence religions making extraordinary claims can easily thrive. Islam is similar in that it is basically Muhammad’s word against any critics; there is no way to prove once and for all that he was a liar, delusional, deceived, etc. All religions really require is enough people that believe in them to avoid dying out.
To me an extraordinary claim is that Noah’s Ark could contain at least 2 of every kind of animal on the earth plus enough food to keep them all alive as long as the Bible says and that the earth was entirely covered with water as recently as about 2300 BC. If this really happened exactly the way the Bible says then we should realistically expect to find physical evidence to support it not to mention that this would require some pretty extreme and magical divine intervention to carry out.
On the other hand, to me the resurrection of Jesus is a claim that is not nearly as extraordinary as a global flood because if it actually happened similar to the way we are told then we shouldn’t really expect any convincing physical evidence of it at this point and the only evidence we should really expect to find is exactly the kind of evidence we already have: the testimony of purported witnesses like Paul and many others (1 Corinthians 15:3-9).
To me, this anecdotal evidence supporting the resurrection is already extraordinary enough because of the way many early Christians like Paul risked their lives and were often killed for supporting this cause. Sure sceptics can easily reject these claims but as far as I’m concerned this conclusion is based purely on personal assumptions and speculation not any real evidence because all the evidence I see suggests that it happened and I am perfectly content to believe their story in this case without direct proof.
In my opinion… Does religion require evidence?
NO. It does not.
SHOULD religion require evidence?
YES. It should.
I agree that perhaps we shouldn’t have to have “direct proof”, but should their be some kind of “trail” or logical/spiritual explanation for religious claims? Yeah, I think so. I think your examples DA were good.
I might add that I am okay with those who believe that a spiritual communication is sometimes enough of an “evidence “for some of these claims – I would just hope that it comes to the individual themselves – a clear spiritual communication, and it’s not just one person believing another because they say so or that so and so happened.
Do I consider a spiritual witness to be “evidence?” No.
Cadence wrote:To me it is a struggle to have a doctrine that requires such a level of obedience and teaches that your very eternal soul is dependent on living it yet so little tangible evidence supports that position. It is always just a matter of faith. I wish God would have provided a little more understandable evidence for the benefits of his plan.
Yes. I do not believe that “a god” would do or follow this idea of intentionally misleading or holding information just to see if people will have faith. It’s certainly a huge flaw in the LDS doctrine, and probably most christain/jewish/muslim/hindu religions of the world. I like the example of the gold plates. Why would god take the plates away and not let, even those who are helping translate, see them? “To see if people will disavow all logical reasoning and accept the LDS church on faith alone?”
It makes no sense to me and I don’t believe this kind idea and theology, nor do I believe this kind of concept is necessary in our spiritual journey. Unfortunately, we find it in EVERY religion!
😥 Evidence is really tricky, if for no other reason than “evidence” is filtered and constructed through our own minds. Even what I see as an individual is not “Objective” – since I certainly interpret what I see differently than another person standing next to me and seeing the exact same thing. In courts, many people assume eye-witnesses are the holy grail of evidence – but in most cases, there are conflicting eye-witness accounts. The classic example is when three very different people see the exact same thing – but then, a couple of days or weeks later, each of them describes a very different event. If a black man, a young child and an elderly white woman see a group of black teenagers congregating, talking quietly and passing something around by a neighborhood store, then if those same people hear that the store was robbed 30 minutes after they saw the group there, generally speaking they are likely to draw different conclusions – and, after a bit of time has elapsed, one or more of them might “remember” seeing the teenagers entering the store or distributing stolen goods. In actuality, the group might have been looking at photos of a friend, but the evidence presented by “eye-witnesses” could be quite damning – especially if only one of those witnesses is identified and testifies.
Yes, ideally, any claims should be backed by evidence. I just don’t feel comfortable in any area that already is as subjective and internal as religion imposing scientific evidenciary requirements on it. It is what it is, and super-imposing artificial requirements that just don’t work in that field doesn’t do any good, imo. I still want as much evidence as can be gained, but I also leave the interpretation of most “religious evidence” up to the individuals – since I want that same consideration for myself. In this regard I really like the “according to the dictates of their own conscience” standard.
No. And that’s the long answer.
For me no. For others maybe. Honestly I just rely on faith. I’ve given up on trying to prove anything after years of combating myself. I believe I know x,y,z, but as far as proof nope can’t prove it. It works for me, maybe not others, but it’s not my job. 
I would add that I do not think evidence is required when you choose to follow a belief system yourself. But when you require or expect others to follow the same path I think it is justifiable to have to provide more than just your own faith based belief. I may believe the earth is flat. I may even belong to the flat earth society and hob nob with like minded individuals. But if I go out and start a campaign to convince others of my belief system I had better have more evidence that just a belief that it is so. Otherwise I am likely to convince people of an incorrect and unfounded concept. Cadence wrote:To me it is a struggle to have a doctrine that requires such a level of obedience and teaches that your very eternal soul is dependent on living it yet so little tangible evidence supports that position. It is always just a matter of faith. I wish God would have provided a little more understandable evidence for the benefits of his plan.
cwald wrote:…I do not believe that “a god” would do or follow this idea of intentionally misleading or holding information just to see if people will have faith. It’s certainly a huge flaw in the LDS doctrine, and probably most christain/jewish/muslim/hindu religions of the world…It makes no sense to me and I don’t believe this kind idea and theology, nor do I believe this kind of concept is necessary …Unfortunately, we find it in EVERY religion!
Cadence wrote:I would add that I do not think evidence is required when you choose to follow a belief system yourself. But when you require or expect others to follow the same path I think it is justifiable to have to provide more than just your own faith based belief.
These ideas bring up another question to consider: just how important is it to be right and what are the consequences of being wrong in the case of religious beliefs? If some false belief results in little or no harm by itself then I wouldn’t be very inclined to care that much if people are content to rely on faith rather than indisputable evidence. Maybe believing in a myth will actually make some people happier and healthier in this life and letting go of the myth will only bring them sadness and pain by comparison.
Of course, the LDS Church has complicated things by making so many heavy demands in terms of time, money, and strict rules like the WoW. That’s why I don’t know if it is really fair to try to lump all religious sects together in one big pile based on our experience and say that none of them have the right to make the claims they make and they don’t really deserve all the followers they have. They all have their own pros and cons; if they were all completely bad or worthless I don’t think they could have been nearly as successful as they have been for this long.
The relative weakness of the LDS Church’s official story at this point compared to the evidence is one reason I think they should take more of an evangelical-lite approach by relaxing their position on some of the heavy demands and dogmatic hard-line doctrines so that members have more flexibility to interpret things their own way. There’s not much they can do about the lack of convincing evidence to support their claims or some of the contradictory and unflattering evidence related to things like polygamy, racial discrimination, etc., but it seems like they could soften some of their extravagant claims about prophets and authority. However, as long as there are enough people that continue to believe them and do what they say they can get away with making almost any claims they want and my only recourse is mostly just to not listen to them when I don’t agree.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Of course, the LDS Church has complicated things by making so many heavy demands in terms of time, money, and strict rules like the WoW. That’s why I don’t know if it is really fair to try to lump all religious sects together in one big pile based on our experience and say that none of them have the right to make the claims they make and they don’t really deserve all the followers they have…
I think that is a good point.
However – just using the WoW for an example, others, even on this site will say “suck it up” and “quit complaining” because MANY religions have health codes of one form or another. However, to use just one example, I think to compare our WoW and our teachings of the consequences of not following it (which is no temple – which equals damnation), with other religious health codes is ludicrous — To compare LDS WoW to Catholics not eating steak on Fridays could be insulting to me… So, I agree with your point. I agree – we SHOULD have more evidence if we are going to make these kind of claims dealing with one’s eternal salvation and exaltation…
Quote:…However, as long as there are enough people that continue to believe them and do what they say they can get away with making almost any claims they want and my only recourse is mostly just to not listen to them when I don’t agree.
I’ve said this before. IMO, we have four choices.
1. Believe in it and live it.
2. Don’t believe it, but live it anyway.
3. Leave
4. Be a “lukewarm” stayLDS type of member and live in the shadows as a 2nd class mormon citizen.
Quote:Be a “lukewarm” stayLDS type of member
Upon reflection, you know what my reaction to this is going to be – so I will leave it at that.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Be a “lukewarm” stayLDS type of member
Upon reflection, you know what my reaction to this is going to be – so I will leave it at that.
Yes. However in my defense, “lukewarm” is not my wordage, it is SD’s, that is why I put it in quotes.
Also – from what I know of you from this board, I’m not sure you would fit in that box anyway. I would probably guestimate you are more of a “don’t believe it, but live it anyway” person? Maybe a combination of the two?
Quote:I would probably guesstimate you are more of a “don’t believe it, but live it anyway” person? Maybe a combination of the two?
No, I’m another category:
Believe what I accept as the core heart of it, but don’t believe most of what I see as the cultural stuff – and live most of the outward trappings (but not all of them) regardless in order to be of service to others.
Iow:
Believe and live what I believe and want to live – and view what I believe and want to live within the broad borders of Mormonism.
Iow:
Believe my own combination of heterodox and orhtodox Mormonism, but live within the parameters of orthoprax Mormonism.
Iow:
I’m a believing Mormon, but not a traditional believing Mormon – but generally a traditional practicing Mormon.
Iow:
Kind of a combination of each of the two – in combination.
😆 😆 😆 Or… (with slight sarcasm), you could take a much more self-centered position: I define the truest, most orthodox way in Mormonism. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. …but I cut them some slack because I can see where they are on the growth curve.
However, I also see the limitations of my own humanity – and recognize the possibiliy that the way I see things may not be the way they really are at all.
I’m a paradox, and a jolly happy one!
cwald wrote:However, to use just one example, I think to compare our WoW and our teachings of the consequences of not following it (which is no temple – which equals damnation), with other religious health codes is ludicrous
Just wanted to throw out there that Mormonism is still nicer to it’s slackers
Taken in an orthodox view, literally:
WoW violation = No temple = no CK = 2nd place trophy in a super happy place, just not quite as happy as 1st place trophy happy.
Catholic eating meat on Fridays = similar to WoW violation = you are a sinner = you will be tormented forever in a NOT HAPPY place.
2nd place trophy in happy place >= no trophy in scary place
BTW, drinking a beer and eating a hot dog on Fridays allows you to offend every major religious dietary code on the planet, in case anyone wants to truly excel and shoot for maximum efficiency. If you put ketchup on it, you can even manage to offend hot dog snobs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.