When they are learned, they think they are wise.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

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.”

I think so Roy. I seems many people think that one contradicts the other though. The more I study the more I learn that everything evolves and changes form from something. Be it water to rain, particles to planets, heat and energy and matter transfer. It aligns with our philosophy of matter can’t be created or destroyed, only transfer into another form or from matter to energy or energy to matter. Everything evolves from something. Might as well be loving heavenly parents in what ever form it takes. but in that matter I also hope for the same with other very intelligent species that live in family units. I would hope their family units that they stay with Thierry entire lives would stay together I as well in the next life.

We aren’t the only creations of god that places a string emphasis on family structure.

[Anonymous]

Let me just add to this discussion that I consider myself to be an intellectual and I consider myself learned. I know this is cliche, but it is absolutely true – the more I have learned, the more I understand that I don’t know very much – and I’m really OK with that.

[Anonymous]

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?

I think we should have the courage to admit we are wrong when our religion conflicts with reality. There is little value in hanging onto a belief because you have always believed it to be so. This type of thinking holds society back. I want to push forward and discover new things and fix current problems. Intellectualism is our best bet even with its flaws. New findings that tear apart previous theories should be relished not shunned. It is said when science fails you what you need is more science not less.

[Author]

Posts