…they hearken unto the counsels of God.” (2 Nephi 9:29)
One of the contradictions I have noticed in the Church is with regard to education. We are encouraged to obtain all the education we can in this life and to make the study of the Gospel and the scriptures a lifelong pursuit. One of the other oft quoted scriptures, even seen at the entrance of BYU is: “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one.”(D&C 93:36-37)
However, intelligence is not always measured by how much schooling one has. Some of the most intelligent, smartest people I have known were not college graduates, holding advanced degrees, but folks who had a lot of common sense, could perhaps fix anything broken, figure out solutions to complex problems that came up in normal life, or were just incredibly smart, insightful and very observant. They also had a ton of empathy for others.
On the other hand, I have also known many people who might have been classified as “book smart,” having much formal education but lacked common sense, humility, compassion for others or were, in a word, just plain dumb.
I have also know those who, without any formal education were not very smart or those with a ton of formal education who were meek, humble, submissive, bright, articulate and very willing to serve others.
So, in summary, I have found that intelligence and intellect is not always measured by how much formal education one might possess.
The contradiction seems to be: “Can someone have too much education? Or, “does there come a point when too much education destroys faith?”
We are also told in the scriptures that we will leave this earth with as much knowledge as we were willing to obtain, so we’d better learn as much as we can. But what does that refer to? I suspect it means that we are to know as much about Heavenly Father and Jesus as we possibly can, to understand the Atonement, the Fall and the effects those have on our eternal life (see John 17:3). That we are to learn about what it means to have charity and serve others.
It probably doesn’t necessarily mean how many advanced degrees we can obtain.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am certainly not saying that education is bad for you. It is not. But, what might be bad is that where our educational training might hamper our ability to fulfill our mission in this life to return to live with Our Father in Heaven and to pass the test of this mortal existence.
The Adversary clearly uses enticements of evil to derail our mission and to get us to leave the path. But he also uses good things to do the same thing. If he can entice us to be so wrapped up doing something that appears to be good for us to get us to question our faith and what we have known to be true, to doubt truth claims of the Church, it is just as effective as getting us to commit some sin.
Back to the opening scripture. “But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” This is important because of the last part, “hearken unto the counsels of God. “ What does that mean? I think we find the answer to that in Mosiah 3:19: “…becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
So, does this set up a contradiction between education and submissiveness? Are there some things the learned in this day are no longer willing to submit themselves to? Because they know better?
Wheat & Tares 
if it weren’t for education, we’d have to submit to the silly idea that this world is flat and the center of the universe.
You seem to be implying here, Jeff, that there is a conflict between education and religion. Why do you feel that way?
Knowledge and/or intelligence generally gives someone a certain degree of authority over others. If we buy that assumption then perhaps this scripture explains the 2nd Nephi verse: http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.39?lang=eng#38
I know that I’ve wanted to exert unrighteous dominion over people who continue to be anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, etc.
For what it’s worth I can understand Dan’s aversion to the idea that there is conflict between education and religion. I hear this 2nd Nephi verse most often when I’m having a political or science discussion with another mormon and I demonstrate that one of their ideas was baseless or that some other evidence contradicts it. They then quickly throw down this verse as evidence that my knowledge has clouded my righteous vision, and if I was still righteous then surely I’d see that they were right in spite of history and evidence.
I think that the type of education you have(evolution/church history) can cause you at some point to question what is literal and what is maybe symbolic in the scripture or what is true and what is made up. I went thru this and it was quite distressing. I guess Faith is a belief in something that you can’t really know for sure is true. I hope that the things I grew up believing are true but the more education you have certainly can cause doubt and skepticism. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from and it’s important to learn truth although the problem is unless you can scientifically prove something most ideas religious or not are inheritantly subjective;which makes you question if you can really know if anything is true or do we just have to resort to believing what helps us make sense of the world, whether it’s true or not. I know I’ve had those feelings in church that we describe as the holy ghost confirm truth but even believing that takes a leap of faith.
Dan,
“You seem to be implying here, Jeff, that there is a conflict between education and religion.”
No, there does not HAVE to be a conflict at all between education and religion. But, there may be a conflict with the type of education, the place of education, and the role that education plays in one’s life against the ability to maintain one’s faith or to be submissive to the Will of God.
Bruce,
“Truth is truth no matter where it comes from and it’s important to learn truth although the problem is unless you can scientifically prove something most ideas religious or not are inheritantly subjective;”
In a manner of speaking, all truth is subjective to a degree. Because even science portends a certain amount of faith where it is in the data, the methods or the conclusions.
If scientific “truth” were so self-evident, scientists would always agree and they often do not.
1+1 only equals 2 because we all agree that it does. There is no “proof’ that it does.
One has too much education when he knows enough to disagree with me. (Of course my fifth grader regularly disagrees with me…)
I think the knowledge we take with us is not limited to knowledge of God or the gospel (it never occurred to me that it might be limited in that way). Some of our knowledge may not be a useful in the eternities, but some may be very useful.
I take the 2nd Nephi scripture at face value: it’s good to be learned (about science, politics, history, the arts, etc) and it’s good to heed the counsels of God (I agree that Mosiah 3:19 is a great way to do it). Those two need not be mutually exclusive. Just because some fail at one or the other does not mean we should not strive for both.
As if one can’t agree with you and not face your wrath?
I happen to be anti-vaccine and pro-evolution. Does that make me subject to your unrighteous dominion?
Merrill Bailey’s “Come Unto Christ” CDs teach a valid/appropriate lesson. The acceptance that shared in those CD’s ultimately teaches that the acceptance of the atonement of Christ and how it has perfected the world is the most important education we can attain to.
If Christ has already paid for all of my sins [mistakes] and those of my wife and kids, then I can overcome the attitude of “conditionally” loving someone [i.e., “I love ______, but wish you’d ______.”]. If Christ already made whole [atoned for] my sins [mistakes], I am free to be here and experiment and learn and grow without going to hell when I make mistakes. Not only that, I don’t have to fix my wife/son/friend/non-member because their mistakes have been paid for too.
They are down here like me, practicing (making mistakes) and following their very own personal path back to Christ. I don’t have to worry that other people (especially the ones I really love) are not doing and learning the same things I am learning. They and God and in charge of their path and it won’t change and get better until they learn their needed lessons.
That’s something you can’t force upon them. Until we learn the lessons of “acceptance,” we’ll continue running around the blogosphere bashing anyone and everyone who disagrees with us.
As we go through life, we often contribute to a bumpier ride than is necessary by resisting or fighting against reality, against life. We torture ourselves by being unhappy about our job, our family situation, our financial situation and more. We turn to outward things, possessions, people, events, in the past or future seeking fulfillment and peace. All the while, the source of the greatest peace is already within each of us.
The one thing we have control over which has the greatest potential to change how we perceive reality is our attitude of either acceptance or resistance. To accept means to receive gratefully, to agree with what was given and receive the gift in it, the hidden wisdom or experience to behold. To resist means to fight, to oppose, to not agree with what is in front of you or being offered to you. When we accept life as it comes to us, we flow gracefully with it, enjoying or at least being at peace with the ride. When we resist life, we exhaust energy and peace while trying to swim upriver or trying to change the direction of the river. On the one hand we become in harmony with what is, with what life deals us and on the other we become out of tune and the creator of our own hell.
What about this quote.
“There are many things which are true, which aren’t very useful.”
Frump (7): I think you did a good job of fleshing out the point I was trying to make in my first paragraph. When someone gains knowledge which they value and another person actively discounts that knowledge or considers it a lie or false, human nature kicks in and it becomes time to start agression, somewhere on the scale from unkind feelings to war. However, if we harken to the counsels of God, we’ll remember that we’re to love our enemies and that accepting them as a loved sister or brother is more important than differences in opinion or knowledge.
Jeff,
What is the will of God, and who gets to say what God’s will is?
I agree that as one learns of the world around them (which was created by God, according to our religious beliefs), one ought to be cautious about preconceived ideas about the makeup of this world and the environment, both social and physical. Man’s interpretation (both a religious man, and a secular man) of what he sees tends to limit what actual reality really is. Poor Aristotle just did not have the tools to prove the earth was not the center of the universe, but that belief led to people thinking it was. It soon became the established religious belief regardless that there is nothing from God Himself that indicated that the earth was the center of the universe. We tend to project upon God that which we think He said or believes or knows. When I say we, I mean everyone, from the atheist on to the most religious and closest to God. I can of course offer Brigham Young’s “testimony” that blacks had the curse of Cain on them, and it was Jesus’ own view. It’s an interesting projection, but alas only a projection. With more knowledge we learn that it just ain’t true whatsoever.
I think the scripture itself is pointing out that intelligence is not brainpower. Light and truth have nothing to do with intellect.
I think education is bad for you if you put the the learning of men on higher ground than scripture. Which I think is very often done.
Dan,
“What is the will of God, and who gets to say what God’s will is?”
In a general sense, it is that we believe it to be. It may be colored by our religious view, or our secular view. On the view that there is no such thing.
I meant it in the LDS view.
so God’s will is whatever we want it to be? God’s will is whatever the Pope says it is? Whatever President Monson says it is?
More than 700 years ago, Rabbi Maimonides talked about seeming contradictions between the Bible and science. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman paraphrased him and said that
MH,
Thanks, that is still true.
“so God’s will is whatever we want it to be? God’s will is whatever the Pope says it is? Whatever President Monson says it is?’
Really, Dan, is that where you want to take this discussion?
Intellectualization is at odds with one’s internal process and this dissonance is at odds receiving the Spirit.
Howard,
That is a most interesting idea.
Thanks,
Jeff,
Did I misunderstand this part of your comment #12?
God’s will is “that we believe it to be.” Am I wrong in asking if what you meant was that God’s will is whatever we believe it to be? Whatever we therefore want it to be?
I do think Rabbi Kleiman’s quote which MH shared is spot on and what I was going for in comment #10. Though I don’t know how “temporary” our incomplete understanding really is. After all, we believed the world to be flat for a very long time. 🙂
Dan,
“God’s will is “that we believe it to be.” Am I wrong in asking if what you meant was that God’s will is whatever we believe it to be? Whatever we therefore want it to be?”
The point I was trying to make is that people see the idea of God’s Will very differently. Colored by their own religious views, world view and in the case of Atheists, not at all.
Given that I am and you are, LDS, We see God’s Will in a particular way. Both for us collectively as His children (return to live with Him someway) and our own life. (What God expects of us as an individual).
But given that God has given His children agency, we can think about the concept of God’s Will any way we please.
so then we can’t really call it “God’s Will.” Instead we call it “Man’s Perception of God’s Will.”
#10 Dan: Who gets to say what God’s will is? Why God, of course.
Paul,
Could you show me where God has indicated His Will. 🙂
Dan, no I cannot. I can, however, satisfy myself that He has.
#11 –
“I think education is bad for you if you put the the learning of men on higher ground than scripture. Which I think is very often done.”
I don’t know about this. Even scripture has been shown at times to be way out of line with what we know about the natural world. For example – D&C 77:6 states pretty explictly that the earth is 6000 years old. Today, there is so much evidence against that, that is like arguing that the earth is flat. I think that there is just as much or more danger when people turn off their brains and accept scripture as God’s perfect, divine word without thinking about the consequences.
Aaron L.
“D&C 77:6 states pretty explictly that the earth is 6000 years old.:
I do not think so. It depends on whose years you are using. Even Elder McConkie stated that the earth was billions of earth years old. If a day of the Lord’s time is 1000 years, you can figure the math.
At some point you just have to take the scriptures for what they say. For all of the 1800s and most of the 1900s that is exactly what church leaders did – hence all the wacky scientific claims and scriptural interpretations. Many, many GAs supported a 6000 year old earth and/or a 6000 year human existence, making statements like that there was no death before the fall. Even Bruce R. supported some of these ideas.
Quote mining somebody who didn’t agree really doesn’t prove anything other than that there was some disagreement as to what the scripture meant, and that as science began showing that a 6000 year old earth wasn’t plausible, the church had to shed it’s old doctrine and correlate a new one.
The amount of mental gymnastics that apologists will go through to feel good about this kind of thing amazes me. Just the other day I was reading on Jeff Lindsay’s site about this issue. He referenced a book by Sterling Talmage (son of James E.) where Sterling states that the words “economy, temporal, and continuance” used in D&C 77:6 must not mean what they think they mean.
That is exactly the kind of BS that apologists use to explain away this kind of thing. You can’t just pick new meanings for words in scripture when the old ones get proven wrong. Either the scripture means what it says or it doesn’t. If God can’t or won’t define his terms the first go around and stick to them, having scriptures in the first place is pointless because they can just be changed willy nilly to mean anything whenever anybody sees it as convenient or necessary – which is exactly what happens, whenever science makes the old interpretation look ridiculous.
If you or allquieton want to use the scriptures as the trump card to get your scientific knowledge, I suppose that’s your prerogative. Personally, I’m going to stick to the science.
Aaron L.
“Personally, I’m going to stick to the science.”
If that is your faith, you are welcome to it. But it makes the point of my post.
Jeff – I think I get what you are saying – that we ought to seek out knowledge, but not let that knowledge get in the way of our “hearkening unto the councils of God,” and that we ought to follow King Benjamin’s council in Mosiah 3:19. Nothing I said states that I am not willing to “hearken” or do what God says he wants for me. That is not the issue at hand for me. Granted, what God says he wants is often very convoluted and seemingly illogical to me, but that is another discussion for another day.
I want to speak to your concluding paragraph:
“So, does this set up a contradiction between education and submissiveness? Are there some things the learned in this day are no longer willing to submit themselves to? Because they know better?”
I think there is a contradiction here, and the historical record backs it up, beginning with the example of a 6000 year old earth. Further examples:
Should I believe the teachings of the scriptures and church leaders that the earth is 6000 years old, or believe the scientists that it is more like 4.6 billion years old?
Should I believe the teachings of the scriptures and church leaders that there was no death before Adam (6000 years ago) or believe in science (the dinosaurs) and the plethora of evidence that there has been life and death on this planet for hundred of millions of years?
Should I believe the teachings of the scriptures and church leaders that the flood and tower of Babel were literal events or believe science that the flood was not plausible on multiple levels and that language differentiation occurred long before Babel?
Should I believe the native americans came from Israel as the B of M stated, or follow the DNA evidence that they came from Asia much earlier than Lehi or the Brother of Jared?
Should I believe the teachings of the scriptures and/or church leaders that evolution is bunk or accept it because of the science supporting it?
Should I believe that having same gender attraction is just a choice or believe the science that says many factors contribute, but genetics and other factors that don’t have anything to do with choosing almost always play a huge role?
If you extend this debate further back to Catholicism and early Christianity, you find even more egregious examples of religion being so far off base, it is laughable. I’m sure you are already aware.
I realize that in modern times, most of the above teachings of church leaders have changed to align themselves with the scientific evidence. The point is that they changed and that science has proven time and time again to be the gold standard for determining truth in the scientific realm, including areas in which religious theology and science overlap.
I don’t understand why we are just supposed to be believing and have faith while discarding conflicting evidence from science given this track record, and when even the prophets and apostles typically capitulate once their archaic doctrines make them look foolish. Science has proven time and time again to be the gold standard, yet people are called faithless, prideful, and apostate because they believe in the validity of its epistemology.
Perhaps believing in pseudo science that defies everything we know about the natural world really is part of what King Benjamin meant by what we need to “submit to.” I can’t say for sure, but I can’t get my brain to dismiss logic, observation, and common sense at the expense of words on a page for which the evidence is scant. History has shown that at least when it comes to matters of science, religious leaders ought to just keep their mouths shut, because when they talk about such things they just end up being wrong.
Jeff, I totally agree with your statement: “intelligence and intellect is not always measured by how much formal education one might possess.” I don’t know that there is any relationship at all between formal education and intelligence. I don’t know that there is any relationship at all between formal education and moral behavior. I also don’t know that there is any relationship at all between formal education and faith.
Anecdotes are great and all, but they can go both ways. I have known people who were very booksmart, who were also kind and humble. I have known many people who were not booksmart, had no formal education, and who were thoroughly unpleasant and aggressive.
In any case, as far as education destroying faith? I think that far more than education being the determining factor, it is pride that is the important thing here. Educated humility is no threat to faith. Pride, all alone, is a huge threat to faith, and pride is most certainly not unique to education, and I think that implying that the two are inherently connected sets up a false dichotomy.
Aaron–
I think science (scientific authority) has been wrong so many times, in so many big ways, it makes my head spin. Why do you trust them?
Personally I only trust the Bom as scripture. (And most of the NT). Just b/c that’s what God has given me a testimony of as truth.
And you ought to read some young-earth literature if you haven’t. There is actually lots of scientific evidence for a young earth.
allquiteon (31): Science can have things wrong, but it’s not static. New findings and developments are constantly making new discoveries. Similarly religion gets things wrong, but as mormons we believe “God will yet reveal many … things.” It’s not as though our church hasn’t made course corrections.
Even the Book of Mormon has errors, and Moroni/Joseph assign responsibilities for said errors to themselves or others.
As for the young-earth arguments, you should probably get a better background in geology before trying to evaluate how adequate the ‘evidence’ is. Several apostles have rejected the young-earth theories, the ones who were scientists to be specific.
Aaron–more power to you. You’re not wrong. You are just on the wrong website to have people agree with you.
Allquieton –
I think you misunderstand science and what it claims to be. It never claimed that it was always right or that that was even its purpose. It does claim to provide the best explanations possible for the natural world based on real observation and objective evidence gathered using the scientific method. This scientific method is specifically designed to control for interfering variables, mitigate bias, and to be both reproducible and falsifiable. Good scientists delight when they are proven wrong, as that means that new observations have been made that better explain how things work. They first gather all the evidence possible, then draw tentative conclusions (theories) based on those observations. To me, this is the best and most reliable epistemological model we have. I trust science because it is consistent with what we know about the natural world, as opposed to the scriptures in which animals talk, people live to be several hundred years old, and the evidence for existence of entire civilizations vanishes over the course of only a couple thousand years for no apparent reason.
Religion does it backwards. Religion makes conclusions, then goes out to find evidence that confirms those conclusions. Bias is not even discouraged, in fact it is embraced. Of all things, emotion is supposed to be our most reliable guide to the truth. Emotion… really? As if the facts were somehow influence by how we feel about them. In addition, unlike science, religion does claim to be absolutely correct when oftentimes it patently is not. As I stated in previous posts the track record of religion on scientific matters is horrible, so if “being wrong” is any judge for validity as you discuss in your post, I don’t know where you get the idea that religion or the scriptures are reliable guides.
I have read quite a bit about the young earth hypothesis and frankly, find it to be laughable. If there is some new “scientific evidence” of which you are privy to and I am not, please do share. Post it up – I’d love to see it.
Is there a potential conflict between education and being religious? How about education and being spiritual? I think the answer to the first is probably yes, while the answer to the second is probably no.
In my experience, being religious and being spiritual are not necessarily the same thing. In the ideal world they are, but not always in the Church (or any other church either). There are people who are “religious” in the LDS sense of being a “perfect” member who look the look, talk the talk, have high callings, etc, but who aren’t necessarily very spiritual. And the converse is true. Some of the most spiritual people I know wouldn’t be considered “religious” in the LDS sense of the world.
So, as far as intellect and these two attributes:
Religious: In the sense of the Church, being religious means accepting everything a prophet or leader might say – whether given as scripture or opinion – merely because of their position. It implies a certain amount of acceptance and embracing of the organization. The problem with this is that there are views expressed in religion that may not reconcile with “learning” very well. I can’t reconcile Joseph F Smith’s teaching that man will never land on the moon with anything. I can’t reconcile no death before Adam (ie. 6000 years ago) with anything. I can’t reconcile inhabitants of the sun and moon with anything. I can’t reconcile many of the policies of the Church with things. So, it simply requires a “suspension of disbelief”. Once educated, you can’t become “uneducated”, so the only two options are to reject some aspects of religion or just ignore the problem.
Spirituality, however, isn’t as dogmatic but, in my mind, focuses on core concepts and not one person’s interpretation. This gives it a certain flexibility. Someone can believe in God, in Christ, in serving your fellowman, in being honest and faithful and charitable, in being a good person, etc., and still handle just about anything education can throw at it.
allquieton (#31): I think science (scientific authority) has been wrong so many times, in so many big ways, it makes my head spin. Why do you trust them?
This is a very weak argument, in my opinion, because religion has changed just as much as science.
At one point, polygamy was essentially required to go to the Celestial Kingdom – it will now get you excommunicated. The Word of Wisdom has changed significantly in what it means. Teachings such as “As man is, God once was;…” have changed. The blood atonement concept once taught by prophets has changed.
And even recently (in my own lifetime). A few decades ago, women weren’t allowed to pray in Sacrament meeting, blacks weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood, etc. Now, you might see a woman give opening prayer and a black Bishop on the stand.
These may not seem like big changes, but if you were a black person in the early 1970’s, forever banned from the temple and the priesthood, and told you were a fence-sitter in the pre-existence, I guarantee it was a big deal to you.
So, if the changes made by scientists makes your head spin, how about the changes made by prophets? If imperfect men change things in science as more knowledge is discovered, why would truths revealed by God (which is theoretically perfect) also change?
Brian,
I agree with Aaron.
Geoffsn–
1.Okay, in your first paragraph I agree with everything you said. It all seems irrelevant to what I posted though. What exactly is your point? Can you state it clearly? Same thing with paragraph 2.
2.Why do you assume my background in geology is weak? Is it possible that I know a lot about geology, but am a better judge of evidence than you? Is it possible the majority of scientists are wrong (again)? If you can’t consider possibilities like these, you’re not in a very good position to determine what might be true.
3.Your reasoning is weak. I don’t think it matters what certain apostles or certain scientists, or the majority think. That’s not what should decide a controversy like this.
Aaron–
1.Same complaint. Go re-read what I actually posted and address that. Seriously, your entire bloated post is all about your own assumptions.
2.Why do you to think I misunderstand science? Just b/c someone draws a different conclusion than you, or disagrees with the majority, does not automatically mean they are ignorant. If you continue to assume that, you won’t ever learn much.
3.You sound like a college kid parroting his biology professor. You take on this condescending tone, make all sorts of blind assumptions, and act as though your assertions are beyond question. Your post is basically a summary of poorly reasoned arguments made by Richard Dawkins, and regurgitated all over the web.
4.Although you may not believe it about yourself, you are bad at reasoning and critical thinking.
Mike S–
Religion has nothing to do with that argument. My argument is that the scientific community is often wrong, therefore they shouldn’t be trusted. It’s a good argument, I think.
Actually some of the changes made by “prophets” do make my head spin and cause me to distrust them. But I think you too are assuming I believe things which I don’t. Just go with what I actually say, and you guys won’t run into this trouble.
allquieton:
The religious community is wrong at least as much as the scientific community. So, to discount “science” because of past mistakes implies that you should discount “religion” because of past mistakes.
You get around this by basically discounting teachings of past prophets and apostles and relying ONLY on scripture as something to trust. For example: I think education is bad for you if you put the the learning of men on higher ground than scripture. Which I think is very often done.
However, there’s a problem with that. Ten different people can read the exact same scripture and have ten different interpretations. Even within the Church, people interpret the BofM and Bible completely differently in many instances.
So, when there ARE religious differences, whose do you follow? You already stated that I don’t think it matters what certain apostles or certain scientists, or the majority think. If it doesn’t matter what an apostle thinks, do you pick whatever seems best to you? If they are different, are your interpretations of a scripture “better” than an apostles? What if two apostles disagree about that a certain scripture means? Who is right then?
The difference in science is that it is DESIGNED to change. A hypotheses is made to explain what is seen. As long as it predicts future observations, it continues. As soon as something contradicts it, it is refined or replaced. It changes BY DESIGN, and we gradually get closer to an understanding of the world around us.
I’m thankful for science, including all of the mistakes that have been made, the bad theories that have been disproven, and the entire refining process that has taken place. Because of “man’s understanding”, medicine improves and extends life, technology exists to enable amazing things, we’ve walked on the moon (and shown that the earth isn’t flat as “scripture” suggests), etc.
Allquieton – Whoa, looks like I touched a nerve. I’m not trying to make this personal, just have a rational discussion.
“1.Same complaint. Go re-read what I actually posted and address that. Seriously, your entire bloated post is all about your own assumptions.”
You posted that you think education is bad for you if you put the the learning of men on higher ground than scripture. Which I think is very often done.
I think that line of thinking is bogus and it is exactly what I addressed.
I don’t so much have a problem with the other part of your post, mostly because I don’t really know what you mean by it. If you want to define what you mean by light, truth, intellect, intelligence and brainpower, and highlight the differences, I’d be happy to address that. If I try to define your terms for you, I’ll probably just get them wrong. Who knows, we might even agree.
“2.Why do you to think I misunderstand science? Just b/c someone draws a different conclusion than you, or disagrees with the majority, does not automatically mean they are ignorant. If you continue to assume that, you won’t ever learn much.”
I thought you misunderstood science because you called it untrustworthy for being “wrong so many times.” That statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is supposed to be and what it claims to be. I just does.
And I never said you are ignorant. Again, not trying to be personal here. I do however think the young earth argument is absolutely ignorant. I don’t believe the Earth is 4.6 billion years old just because the majority of scientists believe it. Trust me, I don’t just take anybody’s word for anything anymore. I believe it because of the overwhelming evidence supporting that theory. If you are ignorant of that evidence, that’s OK, no shame on you. There are many things that I and all of us are ignorant of. Learning is a constant process we must engage in to fight that ignorance. That’s why I come on sights like this, to learn. That’s why I asked you for your evidence of a 6000 year old earth, to learn. I’m not just trying to pontificate and bully people around with my keyboard.
“3.You sound like a college kid parroting his biology professor. You take on this condescending tone, make all sorts of blind assumptions, and act as though your assertions are beyond question. Your post is basically a summary of poorly reasoned arguments made by Richard Dawkins, and regurgitated all over the web.”
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound condescending, only confident. I don’t know whether to take that last sentence as a compliment or a bash. I haven’t read much Dawkins and find myself in agreement with only some of what I have read so far. In any case, calling his or my argument poorly reasoned without specifically pointing out why they are poorly reasoned really doesn’t get us anywhere.
“4.Although you may not believe it about yourself, you are bad at reasoning and critical thinking.”
Thank you for the personal attack. This is usually the sort of thing that happens right about the time that a person runs out of substantive arguments. If that is not the case and you do have more to add to the discussion, I’d love to continue.
Aaron–
“…and it is exactly what I addressed “
This is not true. Your post addresses several ideas that have nothing to do with the short sentence you claim to be addressing. It’s more of a general rant against religion. It doesn’t even mention scripture, education, or the learning of men—it has virtually nothing to do with my statement. That’s why I thought you didn’t read or understand it. And now you just write another long post trying to obfuscate your error?
Can you even now state clearly in a sentence or two, why you disagree?
Mike S–
I’m not saying the religious community isn’t often wrong. I don’t trust them either.
Just to clarify, for everyone. I understand the scientific method. I know it’s strengths and weaknesses. I know what it claims to be. I am a trained scientist. I am pro-science. I like science. If you read my posts, I was never arguing against science. Only against the authority and infallibility of the the scientists currently in power.
Whether you meant to say this or not, I took you at your word when you said that it is bad when you put the learning of men on higher ground than scripture.
Almost everything I have said is directly related to refuting that, at least when it relates to matters of science. If you can’t see that by now, I don’t know what to tell you. I maintain that we ought to leave the science to the scientists.
Since you asked for them, here are my 2 sentences:
(1)When religious authorities and scripture speak of matters pertaining to science, they are consistently proven to be wrong (by science) while at the same time claiming to be correct and inspired by God.
(2)There is no legitimate, objective evidence behind their claims
Mike S.
“In the sense of the Church, being religious means accepting everything a prophet or leader might say – whether given as scripture or opinion – merely because of their position.’
Where does this come from? IMO, this comes from dumb sheep land. No one has asked anyone to accept anything merely because of their position.
The consideration given might carry more weight than Joe Schmo, but we are always asked to “study it out in our minds.”
I think you want to pin blind obedience where it is not warranted.
Aaron L.
“Should I believe the teachings of the scriptures and church leaders that there was no death before Adam (6000 years ago) or believe in science (the dinosaurs) and the plethora of evidence that there has been life and death on this planet for hundred of millions of years?”
I think this should give you a pretty good idea that the scriptural record as a geophysical history is incomplete. And that things were written from a very naive position (the flood).
The age of the earth, while assuredly more than 6000 earth years old, has not been accurately determined at this point. So I would not necessarily hang my hat on the scientific community for it.
And in the grand scheme of things, it would be a nice to know, not a have to know.
allquieton
“Is it possible that I … am a better judge of evidence than you?”
Well, let’s take a look at your evaluation of evidence:
I think that says it all. Combine that with your response to whether or not Jonah could have really lived 3 days in a whale:
To which multiple people pointed out that there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of the link that says that the information may be flawed.
You’re a “trained scientist”? Really? What’s your degree in and where’d you get it?
As for geology, I worked for 4 years for a geologist. My education however is in radiation physics/bioengineering. Got my MS last year at Stanford and working on the PhD.
“Only against the authority and infallibility of the the scientists currently in power.”
Enlighten us. Who are the secret scientists currently in power who claim authority and infallibility? Name one and point to a specific quote when they claimed infallibility. Otherwise you could just slowly back your way out of the conspiracy theory corner you’re in.
Geoffsn-
1. It seems like you are trying to start 5 new random arguments so you can avoid addressing the valid points I brought up in my last post (#38). If your earlier post is defensible, defend it-if not acknowledge it. I look forward to discussing your new post, but let’s get thru the old one first.
Regarding the one line you did actually address: I wasn’t trying to argue that I am better at interpreting evidence than you. I asked the question to point out that there certainly are people who know more about geology than you yet disagree with you. If you knew this, your logic is faulty. But the point of all the questions in my 2nd paragraph is that shockingly you actually seem to be unaware of this-and other obvious possibilities.
Is the conflict between religion and education or might the conflict be between intelligence/wisdom and education….
Or, between intelligence/wisdom and religion…
Additionally, living by faith here seems to be quite important for this experience so how smart would God be to just let us figure this all out scientifically or tell us explicitly in scripture so we “know”?
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions, and knocking on the wrong doors…
Lol-there ought to be a disclaimer at the bottom of every link saying “this info may be flawed.” Don’t you think?
Geoffsn (#48)-
So you quote me but fail to specify any errors I made. is this an attempt at ridicule? You haven’t even made an argument-how can I respond?
For the record I only mentioned being a trained scientist so certain others would quit trying to explain the basics to me. I certainly don’t think it lends any weight to my arguments. And I still don’t think you understand how little importance I attach to academic achievements. So quit bragging and trying to skate by on that crap instead of well reasoned arguments.
Geoffsn (#48)-
I never said anything about secret scientists. Or that scientists claim infallibility. So quit putting words in my mouth-it’s a cheap tactic.
Scientists in power are the ones who control funding and determine what is taught in schools.
I thought you just had bad reading comprehension but now I’m beginning to see that you are purposefully “misunderstanding” and twisting things around. I’m glad for what it must mean you realize though.
Nathan = allquieton (sorry if that was confusing.)
Nathan/allquieton-
Wow. Comments 49, 51, 52, 53. Aaron, it appears I struck the nerve.
I’m hesitant to even engage with you because judging from all of your comments on this and other posts, it seems that arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. “it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” But I’ll try anyway.
If you look back at my comment (32) the three paragraphs mirror/address your 3 paragraphs in your post (31). You said “I think science (scientific authority) has been wrong so many times, in so many big ways, it makes my head spin. Why do you trust them?” To which I indicated that science isn’t supposed to ever have all the answers (MikeS did a much better job explaining this idea in the 2nd to last paragraph of #41).
After posing the question “why do you trust them?” (again I ask as in #48 who is this nameless group of scientists? all of them? only the 99.9% that believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?) the next six words you typed were “Personally I only trust the Bom.” Whether or not you meant to do this, it implies that you don’t trust science but do trust the Bom. Which is why I pointed out to you that the Bom is certainly not infallible.
Finally you claim there is “actually lots of scientific evidence for a young earth.” This undermines all of your credibility. If you actually had evidence that was stronger and more convincing than the world full of evidence suggesting the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then you should be able to get a ridiculous amount of money for research and be appointed chair at any number of universities. The person who can break centuries worth of a faulty scientific assumption is praised as a genius (see Einstein and Darwin). The fact is that young earth creationism might as well argue that the world is really flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. The evidence is so overwhelming that to still attempt to make science fit into a literal interpretation of the Bible is kicking at the pricks. It is on that basis that I assumed that you don’t have a good understanding of the basics of geology. Is it possible that you know more about geology than I do, or that a young earth creationist knows more, or that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, or that all science is wrong? Sure, everything is possible. But none of those seem at all probable. At all.
As for weak reasoning, given the couple comments you’d made on this thread up to #31, you seemed the type that believed anything apostles said, so for that reason only I added the last sentence in #32.
Now the problem people seem to be having with you in this tread: 1. condescension, 2. misunderstanding of the nature of science, and 3. a penchant for conspiracy theory.
1. Let me just let your words do the talking:
It was sweet irony as you used the very condescending tone that you accused Aaron of, while accusing him of it. (The irony isn’t lost on me that I’m doing the same thing now) Also funny is that by using your very logic I could ask if you considered the possibility that you’re totally wrong and that we’re right. I could say: “Your reasoning is weak. If you can’t consider possibilities like the fact that we’re right and you’re wrong, you’re not in a very good position to determine what might be true. If you continue to assume that, you won’t ever learn much. Just go with what we actually say, and you won’t run into this trouble.”
2. Aaron already did a good job outlining this. No need to continue beating a dead horse.
3. While you didn’t say the word secret, you’ve already now said what I assumed you were on about. It’s one big conspiracy. Scientists are controlling the money and education to make everyone believe them for some yet undisclosed reason. Do you know how research funding works or how education curriculum is determined? Those are taken care of by bureaucrats. Generally the scientists are too busy actually doing research to deal with money and curriculum. I wish scientists determined what is taught in schools, then we wouldn’t have that mess in Texas right now. Additionally, the fact that you’re pushing young earth creationism connotes that you espouse the conspiracy theory that science is suppressing the “real evidence” that proves the bible true.
It’s hard to not want to humiliate you when you keep acting like President Clinton arguing about what the definition of “is” is. For example:
“I never said … that scientists claim infallibility. So quit putting words in my mouth-it’s a cheap tactic.” Sorry. How could I have possibly thought you said that? I guess you did say this: “If you read my posts, I was never arguing against science. Only against the authority and infallibility of the the scientists currently in power.” But NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT SCIENTISTS WERE INFALLIBLE. Why argue against something that no one has said? “Just go with what we actually say, and you won’t run into this trouble.” Because you were the first to mention the “infallibility of scientists currently in power”, it was implicit that it was your impression.
“For the record I only mentioned being a trained scientist so certain others would quit trying to explain the basics to me.” Yeah, I know. That was pretty obvious. I’m basically calling your bluff. Anybody can claim to be a “trained scientist” but I’ve never actually heard a “scientist” refer to themselves in that way. So yes, I want you to tell us what you were trained in, how much training you received, etc. I don’t buy it. My guess is that by your standard, anyone who got a BS instead of a BA is a “trained scientist.” I’d love to have you prove me wrong.
The whole reason I wrote comment #48 was to show examples of your inability to rationally evaluate “facts and evidence” or even recognize them when you see them. That way everyone could save some time and not feed a troll. But your comments 49,51,52,&53 were enough bait for me to bite.
I know everyone will doubt the sincerity of this: but I’m sorry I’ve been so condescending and rude. I know that it’s not constructive nor does it help. When I have to read someone’s comments which are a toxic mix of ignorance and condescension, something snaps and I’m super rude to them. I don’t have any real excuse other than I need to learn to let things go and not meet condescension with condescension. Maybe take this last paragraph as an “increase of love” after a lengthy “reproving with sharpness.” That’s the best spin I can put on it.
Re Jeff-
I think it’s an important point you bring up. But I think it has much less to do with one’s intellect or education and more to do with pride. In my experience righteous orthodox church members are equally susceptible to this same pride, though it takes a different form (usually laced with deference to authority), while simultaneously wagging their finger at the “intellectuals.” Hence I’m less concerned with what your post is pointing out in terms of education, and more concerned with keeping my pride in check.
Having said that, one of my biggest issues with religion in general is that I felt I had to check my brain at the door. I don’t think everyone has to do that, but I did. Increasingly, I realized that I needed to stop applying the same thought processes to my religion as I did my job. At some point, I had to look inside and acknowledge that that part of me was being left aside in my spiritual journey. I could no longer let that happen. I think my spirituality needs to be a holistic approach to my life. I couldn’t set aside difficult issues in the name of faith because it left a part of me on the outside – completely malnourished.
Unfortunately, this did have an effect on my faith, though I’m not convinced it was for the worse, even though traditional Mormons will likely view it that way. The rebuilding of my worldview to embrace the many aspects of my life has been life changing for me – for the better. Frankly, I feel strongly that the Mormonism that Joseph envisioned would embrace the new me. But modern Mormonism won’t.
Geoffsn,
“As for geology, I worked for 4 years for a geologist. My education however is in radiation physics/bioengineering. Got my MS last year at Stanford and working on the PhD. ”
No offense, but so what? Again, you are driving home a key point of my post as you guys go off on a tangent.
JMB,
I was trying to make the point without using the “P” word.
Funny, one thing about joining the Church is that I never felt I checked my brain at the door. Perhaps as an adult convert that made it different for me. But I have always felt that I have a lot to learn and to ponder.
I have always admired Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts and Hugh Nibley just because they thought outside the box. Even if their ideas were not mainstream.
The Church in general is almost always going to gravitate to the lowest common denominator in the lessons for the Church at large. but I am always impressed by a few folks in my GD class who come up with excellent thoughts and ideas. Things I do not even think about sometimes.
Since I am Jewish, I wonder if I am genetically wired not to fall into the blind faith trap. 🙂 Questioning is part of my nature.
To me, the Atonement is an extremely complex thing and requires a lot of brainpower to fully understand it. Having said that, you can also understand it at a very superficially level and still be comfortable with that understanding.
I’ve always envisioned the Gospel like an onion. You can understand it at the upper layers but you can also peal away into the deeper layers and it is still the same onion.
I think the tent of thought is much bigger than we sometimes give it credit for. Just because there are a few who seem to be uncomfortable with the exploration of of new ideas.
You’ll find out that that is what High Priests Group meeting is for….. 🙂
Re Jeff-
Well, as you know, Jeff, I’ve decided to make my views work within the church for many of the reasons you mentioned. The issue for me was always that I had to admit to myself that I didn’t know things for certain, in fact, I thought some things were unlikely. For example, as much as I try, I just don’t think it is likely that the BoM is historical. For me, this made my church experience very difficult for quite a while. Sure E Holland claims they won’t kick me out for this, but the non-historical-BoM POV is not welcome at church. For me, I couldn’t continue to put things on the proverbial shelf. Also remember, I’m an engineer, so analysis and intellectual rigor is what I’m trained to do, and incidentally, naturally drawn toward.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have a different view of these things now, but I think my experience is illustrative of what many go through when they have the feeling of “checking their brain at the door” (which I DO NOT mean as an insult to those who don’t feel they have to do this) and which I definitely don’t necessarily equate with one’s level of education.
The onion is an interesting metaphor. For me the Gospel is like a glass window on a house. It provides some shelter from the elements, particularly during bad weather, and it provides a prefilter (lens if you will) through which one can view the world. But if you push on it too hard (ask too many questions, or the wrong kinds of questions) it breaks. The downside is that you now have a mess to clean up and a new worldview to build. The upshot is that now there’s no prefilter through which you must view the world. You can poke your head out of the house and look at the world for what it is. Some people will pick up all the shattered glass and toss it all in the trash can. But others, including myself, pick up the pieces that are still good, that are still important, and use them to help build a more flexible plexiglass window. At least for me, this new window has more flex, and pieces can be taken out and grafted in as necessary as new information becomes available.
Jeff –
“No offense, but so what?” Well, a self-proclaimed ‘trained scientist’ who is pushing a theory which mainstream science left decades before Darwin published the Origin of Species suggested that he or a young earth creationist knew more about geology. It was in that context that I gave information on my background in geology and science. Does this relate to your OP? No. I really wish there were nested comments, it would clear up a lot of the discussion.
If the key point you referred to was that I was being uncharitable then I can say yes, you’re right. I need to be better. If you were referring to some other point, I’d like some clarification.
Geoffsn–
You are transparent. When you stop jumping to conclusions, stop randomly speculating about my beliefs, stop twisting what I say, stop flattering others to gain allies, stop insinuating…and start to make concise relevant arguments, then I will want to talk.
I am sorry to all (esp. Jeff) for distracting from the thread. I got sucked in, but I think I’m done now.
Geoffsm,
“A trained scientist” is somewhat meaningless. Yes, a person can have a lot of training, it doesn’t make them smarter and it doesn’t mean they come to the same conclusion as we might in analyzing any particular data.
Some of the greatest inventors and contributors toward science have not had much if any formal training.
I find the discussion way off the topic
allquieton/Nathan-
I haven’t done any “random speculation,” it’s all been based on things you’re written. As I pointed out, whether or not you intended to do so, you’ve implicitly given clues about your beliefs. You already accused me of putting words in your mouth: “I never said … that scientists claim infallibility. So quit putting words in my mouth-it’s a cheap tactic.” and I already addressed the fact that you previously said “If you read my posts, I was never arguing against science. Only against the authority and infallibility of the the scientists currently in power.” which, again, no one else had said. I’m not sure what you thinks constitutes flattery unless sincere recognition of something you dislike by default must be flattery. I’ve addressed your points. I’m still calling your bluff. I’d also like to know who these scientists are “who control funding and determine what is taught in schools.” Additionally, since there “is actually lots of scientific evidence for a young earth” I’d love to hear about some of it.
Jeff-
I agree with most of what you’ve written, and it’s entirely possible that with some clarification I could agree with all of it. There are always exceptions to trends and correlations. I also know people who are not intelligent but well educated and others who are intelligent and uneducated. That said, they tend to be exceptions. There is a correlation between intelligence and education. If there weren’t then why bother with education at all? If you think there isn’t such a correlation, what objective measure are you using for intelligence? It seems you’d need to change the meaning of the word and render it an immeasurable entity, at which point all discussions of it become opinions with anecdotal evidence. If you do agree that there is a correlation, it’d be good to know because while unstated, it seems that you don’t.
Also, since you’re a perma here, could I submit a request that nested comments be enabled? That way tangents are easily identified and can continue in their own sub-thread while being ignored by everyone else. If you prefer that tangents not occur on these threads, then this one probably needs to be moderated.
Re Geoffsn
Regarding the nested comments, initially when we started the website it had nested comments. After a lot of debate and discussion and taking opinions from readers it was decided to abandon them. Thanks for the suggestion and it will definitely be considered. I like nested comments too!
Geoffsn,
I agree with the nested comments. Maybe it is time to vote on it again at our High Council perma meeting we have twice a month… 🙂
I’d answer your question about education this way. As I said in the post, I have nothing against education. I have counseled my children to get a good education and go to college. With a one exception they eschewed education and now are in low wage jobs struggling to support themselves.
So, I see, as I did for myself, the benefit of higher education. For the sake of supporting oneself and family. I do not see it as an end unto itself.
I observe some who are life-long school people. That is, they have a hard time being in the real world. They are more comfortable in school than in the working world. They go for degree after degree looking for the holy grail of satisfaction prior to plunging into the job market.
OTHO, folks that are passionate about particular professions sometimes require advanced degrees in order to fulfill their passion. I admire that and support it.
But, I also see an effect that secular schooling can have on one’s faith and testimony. That was the point of the post. The effect is very often negative.
When we are told to gain all the education we can, to me, it is two-fold:
1. Educate yourself in order to support yourself and your family. Sisters may also need that education in case of a spouse issue such as divorce, death or illness. Some sisters may also choose to work outside the home.
2. Educate yourself about the Gospel. Learn all you can about Heavenly Father and Jesus, the Plan of Salvation, the Atonement, etc.
In the end, it is that knowledge that will save us. Not a triple integral or how to measure stresses on a cantilever. Or even how to remove an appendix, legal or physical.
Bottom line: to be learned is good if we hearken unto the counsel of god.
1+1 only equals 2 because we all agree that it does. There is no “proof’ that it does.
Jeff, is the allusion to Orwell’s 1984 intentional?
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
Jeff: ” Educate yourself in order to support yourself and your family.”
To me, this is a miminum standard. Yes, we should train to become well employed so that we can support our families. (And by we, I mean men and women.)
But there is more value in education than simply the career training. There is value in learning how to learn. There is value in the study of the arts and sciences for their own sake.
I’m not advocating that education become a graven image. But it can be a lifelong pursuit, alongside a study of the gospel and practical training that will enable us to work and live.
“Jeff, is the allusion to Orwell’s 1984 intentional?”
Not really.
Paul,
“But there is more value in education than simply the career training. There is value in learning how to learn. There is value in the study of the arts and sciences for their own sake.”
I totally agree.
I’m not advocating that education become a graven image. But it can be a lifelong pursuit, alongside a study of the gospel and practical training that will enable us to work and live.
It is this worship of one’s education and the touting of degrees where I see the problem. So I agree here as well.
Planet of the Apes covered this issue well…
Col. Taylor: There’s your Minister of Science, bound to expand the frontiers of knowledge!
Cornelius: Taylor, please!
Col. Taylor: Except he’s also chief defender of the Faith!
Dr. Zaius: There is no contradiction between faith and science…TRUE science.
Both religionists and academics are guilty of spewing dogma as if it were absolute truth.
Douglas,
There are great movie lines that just about cover any situation! 😀
When you talk about “the learned”, and ask what causes them to be “no longer willing to submit,” you are by definition speaking from a position of ignorance. You don’t know what they’ve learned, so you don’t know why they don’t submit.
I would suggest asking them if you really want to find out. Unfortunately, the only way to do so is to learn those things yourself. And the only ways to defend yourself against learning new things — thought-stopping techniques, obedience to authority — all keep you from really listening to or sympathize with them.
In the end, all you can do is judge them like this, from an acknowledged position of ignorance, and tell yourself how glad you are that you aren’t like them. And how you know that you would never make the same mistake.