From Wikipedia:
Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error or fallacy of the converse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:
- If P, then Q.
- Q.
- Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
If you understand the above, now read the following and try to convince me that it is not a textbook case of affirming the consequent:
Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
In proposition form:
- If you ask god if the Book of Mormon is true, god will confirm it through a feeling.
- You feel something.
- The Book of Mormon is true.
Could your feeling be due to virtually infinite alternative causes? Â Absolutely.
And if you don’t feel something? Â You did it wrong.
The irony of this just struck me: the core logic of the missionary message is a logical fallacy. Â 🙂
Seth, if your evidence boils down to (and I’m drawing on LDS Anarchist here): “I spent hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks focusing all of my mental attention on object X and then I began to hear voices and felt some funny feelings,” then my shit-god is just as likely to exist as is your Mormon-god.
Another bit of evidence that focus can drive you to hallucinate:
http://www.odditycentral.com/news/worlds-quietest-place-lets-you-hear-your-internal-organs.html
@91 Parker,
You are still trying hard to misunderstand everything, or at least to make it appear that you misunderstand. Moroni called the entire work “the book of mormon” in the title page. Both these statement, then, are true:
“Moroni finished his father’s book–the last two chapters of the Book of Mormon (small book not total book).”
“Moroni finished his father’s book–the last two chapters of the Book of Mormon (small book not total book), the Book of Ether and the Book of Moroni, in other words, he finished the total book, not just the small Book of Mormon.”
Your attempt to narrow down everything to just the small Book of Mormon takes Moroni’s words out of context because after Moroni wrote the Book of Moroni, he then wrote the Title Page which indicates that the entire Book of Mormon was ascribed to the father, not the son.
The evidence points to Moroni receiving commandments concerning what was written in the Book of Moroni, too. For example, Mormon had always intended that the information written in Moroni 2 was included in the record, as demonstrated by 3 Nephi 18:37, so to say that the Book of Moroni was just Moroni doing his own thing doesn’t hold water. Moroni was still fulfilling his father’s commandments in the Book of Moroni, but they were conditional commandments. In other words, “If this condition, then write that.” The writings of Moroni in the small Book of Mormon and in the Book of Ether were unconditional commandments.
These things aren’t difficult to understand, but I am sure you will find a way to make it all incomprehensible.
Re: D&C 121, which you keep bringing up, does that go both ways in your mind, or do you see it as only applying to me and not to you? What I see on this forum is a lot of bitter, vindictive, condescending comments, so I presume that the principles in that scripture only applies to practicing Mormons, huh? At any rate, since some of my comments have been interpreted as “reproofs with sharpness,” regardless of whether they were intended that way or not, I will say that I hold no hard feelings against anyone here, regardless of whether they mock or not. Friendly conversationalists will be treated as friends, whereas fighting and mocking words will simply be ignored. Doesn’t mean I love them any less. When the behavior of the mockers improves, I may engage them again, as I already said in a previous comment, but until then I will avoid them, for in the immortal words of Holly, “the messed-up behaviors of messed-up people…are examples of what sane, healthy people should avoid.”
Cue the misconstruction, misunderstanding and misunderstanding…
Also cue the typos…
No, it doesn’t boil down to that. It boils down to looking at what the religion has actually produced, the effects it’s had on my life and the lives of others, the art, music, literature, ideas, and so forth that it has produced.
You know – empirical stuff.
@102:
Well, at least you know better than to expect anyone to find your comments coherent and intelligible, LDS Anarchist.
I liked this part:
Very resourceful and cute! You engage with “the mockers” by announcing that you won’t engage with them. It’s a more pompous and aggrieved version of the old “your statement doesn’t deserve a response” response.
fyi: When your logic improves and you quit making stuff up and quit expecting people to accept your nonsense as doctrine (because even if we don’t believe LDS doctrine, we can still recognize it when we see it), people will be more likely to respond in ways you find more “friendly.” Try it and see!
So, you’re rejecting LDS Anarchist’s position?
I’m fine with that, I just want it to be clear.
And I can’t help but point out that what we now have is two apologists who disagree as to what indicates whether or not Mormonism is “true”: LDS Anarchist says it’s divine interactions that results from slavish devotion while Seth says it’s his interpretation of the influence of Mormonism on his life.
My response, then, Seth, is two words: confirmation bias.
@106: Yes. As I wrote @48:
So is the play Medea by Euripides empirical proof for Helios and dragon-drawn chariots?
Euripides has been inspiring people a whole lot longer than Mormon or Moroni.
Just about anything could be called confirmation bias by those who disagree with it.
Actually Suzanne, Euripides’ notion hasn’t had the sort of success I was talking about. I doubt he’s really inspired much of anything from you – any more than any other story.
Bingo! That’s why we need evidence, Seth, and a rational approach to truth claims. That’s why faith as you describe it isn’t rational or a valid approach to decision-making.
Well Medea has had more success than the Book of Mormon.
I could link to many representations of her in Art.
I don’t know if any great artists painting Mormon or Moroni.
Unless you count Arnold Friberg.
Now if Ray Harryhausen had only made a Book of Mormon movie, then I’d agree.
As it is, Medea by Euripides has played on the great stages.It is taught in top universities and ordinary High Schools.
It’s endured for 2500 years.
And gave me an emotional wallop. But I guess you know better than me, the impact on me.
I think that what Seth is getting at is that people base their entire lives and livelihoods around God and religion. This is not something that happens with the flying spaghetti monster or crap on the sidewalk.
I think the challenge of alternate religions that have been popular in the past (or even mutually exclusive current religions) is a good response – but someone could just respond that they think that these had/have an element of truth revealed to them as well… In other words, even if Helios isn’t empirically proven, that doesn’t matter because “Helios” is just a vehicle for (insert the poetic truths, values, and ideas that are associated with Helios and that do resonate with people). An “emotional wallop” is probably not going to impress Seth on this point… But if you or others changed the way you live your life as a result, I would think that is more what Seth is getting at.
…But, you know, I guess an issue is that not every religious person is even clear on what exactly is the nature of religious truth. If we’re talking about resonating values, that is different than people who are very much talking about literal existence claims.
Additionally, different people are inspired by different things, and not necessarily inspired in ways that we all should or will concede are for the better. I am, for one, not impressed with the way that Mormon theology “inspires” many folks to defend patriarchy, heteronormativity, etc. But I also recognize that perhaps patriarchal religions are so popular precisely because people (especially the ones who benefit from it) already identify with it. So, just because something is well accepted doesn’t necessarily mean that it is for the better.
Suzanne, if you have specifics to recommend to Euripedes, I’d be happy to hear about it and be enriched by it.
Andrew, on your point about patriarchal religions – I don’t feel any particular need to defend the patriarchy – in or out of the LDS Church. It’s not something I particularly have a “testimony” about one way or the other.
But I would just make the observation that one of the reasons patriarchal models may be popular is not so much because they are benefiting “old rich white guys” or something. It’s because the modern fad is one of limitless human freedom of thought and action, an to be honest, such freedom is oppressive to many people. The old patriarchy may not be the best way to combat the tyranny of modern libertinism – but it is unquestionably available at the moment. And that may be why it is popular among those seeking refuge from the ideological bullying of the popular culture.
Andrew @113:
Well, what Seth actually wrote @104 was that you could find “evidence for the Christian God” that
People base their entire lives and livelihoods around death and destruction. How much effect has war had on the lives of the people of the world? How many novels, movies, plays, epics, romances, songs has war produced? Does that mean we should worship it?
Other people base their entire lives around astrology–their are people who make their livings as astrologers, and others who consult astrologers regularly. It has produced lots of art and was for many years even part of christianity. So, is that evidence of its spiritual and intellectual validity and rationality?
How do you know? Honestly, how do you? Charles Manson heard God talk to him in Beatles’ albums. How do you know someone hasn’t based their life on a hallucination inspired by a pile of shit or the FSM?
If one of the issues on the table is faith in the possible but not obviously manifest, why deny these things that are possible but not obviously manifest?
After all, as Seth himself has argued, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I agree. Slavery and not educating women were both once well accepted. I don’t think either was for the better.
Seth #114:
and once again, Seth rails against straw beliefs pretty much no one actually holds. I’m not saying there’s no one anywhere on the planet who believes that human beings are unlimited in thought and action; there might be people foolish and crazy enough to actually believe it. But pretty much everyone I have ever interacted with realizes that there are limits to what we can do and limits to what we should do–and most definitely limits to what we can think.
That is one of those things that is manifestly true: we can’t think ourselves to the answer of the question of “How do we prove, conclusively, the existence of god?” Most of us admit as well that our minds are limited in that we cannot know the thoughts of other people or other creatures.
Come to think of it, Seth and LDS Anarchists are the only ones here who seems to think that there is no limit to their thoughts, who feel free to make up any old thought that pleases them–including the utter fiction that they can know the motives and thoughts of people they’ve never met, and people who, if they lived at all, still died hundreds of years ago.
In other words, Seth, the only reason you know about this “modern fad” is because YOU have bought into it. You demonstrate that on just about every thread you comment on.
LDS Anarchist, alright, Moroni only wrote precisely what his father Mormon instructed him to write. So Mormon says, “Moroni, write a passage directly to our beloved Lamanites, telling them of God’s great mercy, and promise them if they ask God they can know for themselves that God is merciful. But what he meant to say rather than beloved Lamanites was “all people.” And rather than knowing I Moroni/Mormon speak the truth about God’s mercy, he meant to speak about the truth of Mormon’s collection of edited and dictated plates.
I do understand how important it is to you, and of course all missionaries, to have such a promise, otherwise you would be required to accept the book entirely on faith, but now you can “know.” It is unfortunate, for obvious reasons, that the editors and redactors of the Bible didn’t include a similar promise.
re 114,
Seth,
Yeah, maybe I’m overstepping in my armchair analysis, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of things you don’t necessarily “feel any particular need to defend”…and then you end up defending them anyway in roundabout or not-so-roundabout ways. And more and more, it seems that the reason you change positions on any sort of issue and get a sense of fervency/urgency/testimony is usually from a negative reaction with the “opposition.”
But the thing I’m saying is that Mormonism really gives you ready-made reasons and points to justify the positions you come to. (even if you don’t always admit to it.)
Like, “tyranny of modern libertinism” and “ideological bullying of the popular culture”…these sound pretty informed by Mormonism to me (especially *what* you consider to be ideological bullying of the popular culture…what you consider to be the dominant elements of popular culture that is doing the bullying).
note that when *other* minority groups are “bullied by the popular culture” (because, you know, said popular culture has many facets) — usually because of things like patriarchy, heterosexism, etc., you may or may not be so willing to support their attempts to combat these things. Like…if we’re talking about where patriarchy fits in this scheme, it would not be in the box “minority’s tool to fight against the popular culture.”
This is definitely a different conversation than the one at hand, however.
re 115,
Holly,
I’m sure that Seth believes there are far more positive outcomes to religions than for war and destruction, and that makes the difference between the Christian God vs. war. (that’s a disputable point, of course, but I’m just saying…it’s easy for someone to say that’s not comparing apples to apples.)
Again, I think that the point on astrology is a good comparison…but I think many people would say, ‘yes, absolutely, there is *something* to these things, even if science hasn’t figure out how to replicate it.’ Especially if we’re including ‘spiritual’ validity along with ‘intellectual’ validity and rationality…
I see Seth’s argument as being about movements — groups of people, not pockets of individuals. So, even if “someone” has based their life on a hallucination inspired by a pile of shit or the FSM, that’s not the same as 1 billion Catholics, etc.,
maybe there is a vast contingent of FSM worshippers living their lives by the noodly appendage in a way that is not so visible to armchair internet analysis, but for major religions, this is not the case.
I don’t think that Seth’s argument here is that the changed lives of worshippers can be “possible but not manifest.” Rather, even if (insert deity here) seems not to be directly manifest, he/she/it/they manifest through the changed lives of the adherents.
(again, though, I’m not saying this is necessarily a valid argument. For a number of reasons. And of course, if I’m not channelling Seth’s intentions properly, I fully concede to any corrections he may have.)
Andrew–
You are probably right in your analysis of Seth’s argument. I think it is very kind of you to make his argument more intelligibly and coherently than he ever bothers to do.
” he/she/it/they manifest through the changed lives of the adherents.”
But does this make the fictional entity tangibly real? Does it provide empirical proof?
Have you seen the movie, “Candyman” Can people beliefs create a monster? Can urban legends become real? ” You are not content with the stories, so I was obliged to come.” and ” Our names will be written on a thousand walls. Our crimes told and retold by our faithful believers. We shall die together in front of their very eyes and give them something to be haunted by. Come with me and be immortal.”
And there’s the novel. “American Gods” Can a belief take materialized form?
Star Trek is a popular.Talk about changed lives, a movement. People voted overwhelming to name a moon of Pluto after the fictional planet, “Vulcan”. A belief taking material form?
But whether the moon is named Vulcan or not, the moon is still there and the fictional planet is not.
A moon on Pluto named Vulcan does not provide empirical proof for the reality of Star Trek.
It does provide evidence of how popular a fictional world has become.
And if Mormonism ever moves from being a regional dominant religion into a major religion, and impact the lives of billions, the Book of Mormon is still not historical.
And Moroni’s promise is still a logical fallacy.
@120: Yes. Thank you.
Andrew, I don’t really have a “testimony” of the corporate LDS Church and a lot of its trappings.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t think that some of the criticisms being made against it are completely retarded. Especially when certain echo chambers are all enthusiastically back-slapping each other over the same retarded argument.
In which case, yes, I’ll probably come in on the defense of “the corporation” out of sheer irritation at human online stupidity.
The City Creek Mall being a good example. Just because I don’t support “the corporation” doesn’t mean that argument is not still completely idiotic.
@122: There you go. Seth doesn’t bother to create a decent argument of his own; he merely responds with irritation to the statements of others. He’ll defend positions he doesn’t really hold, just because he’s so motivated by pique and spleen.
What a nice, concise summary of the collective act of testimony bearing! What a terrific indictment of his attempts to validate faith because a lot of people invest in it! Thanks, Seth, for hoisting yourself on your own petard!
120,
Suzanne,
I’ll quote Seth from an earlier comment:
^Interestingly, this goes both ways. Seth was meaning it the other ways (finding neurochemical explanations doesn’t disprove God)…but I would point out this way: the lived experiences of religious believers get us no closer to proving God at all. [of course, i imagine that when seth says that the christian god has more proof than the FSM or insert any other challengers…he’s not *just* thinking about the changed lives of believers…but I don’t think he wants to get into that argument on such a discussion as this.]
*Perhaps* the changes in lives is method for interfacing with a valid divine reality (thus, the “fictional entity” is “tangibly real”)…but perhaps…there’s a different explanation [fictional, intangible things can still be valuable.].
I don’t think it matters for Seth’s point. The underlying point still stands. Regardless of whether God actually exists or not, the effect of God beliefs is still more influential and powerful than (insert competitor beliefs).
Comparisons to Star Trek trivialize the influence and power of religion. Yes, you have a lot of star trek fans. And yes, many of them will become very involved with the fandom (cosplaying, learning conlangs like Klingon, etc., etc.,) but where are the Star Trek charities? How much money have they raised? How many people have they served? Where are the Star Trek schools? How have Star Trek inculcated morality for the future generation in a systematic socialization process?
^Even the most dedicated of fans don’t have anything like the institutional cachet of most religions.
And I’m not saying religions are perfect, or even all that great. BUT they do much “more” than even a fandom does.
Like, let’s turn it from the flip side.
So, there are often criticisms of institutional problems of religions…but this *also* shows how “big” and “influential” they are…where is the star trek “office building”? Where is the star trek “temple”. How many people are disaffected from star trek because of all the time and money they put to a fraud? How many people commit suicide because of the restrictive repressive beliefs of Star Trek? How many people are shunned for disagreeing with Star Trek tenets?
It’s simply not comparable. This is even if God is not actually, tangibly, physically existent. Even if God does not exist, the fictional concepts and the (tangible) things built around it/him/her/them are different than the fictional concepts around Star Trek.
re 122
Seth,
The corporate LDS church isn’t the only thing people have problems with. The reason why some bloggers think you are a “rape apologist” is not because of your position w/r/t the corporate LDS church.
…but I would say that here’s still something to think about. you willingly come to the defense of “the corporation” out of sheer irritation at human online stupidity. But when it comes to other minority groups (say, LGBT), then you aren’t coming to that defense…because instead you see gay marriage proponents as being part of the source of “human online stupidity.”
…the issue is that “human online stupidity” exists everywhere. But what I’m saying is that your group memberships predetermine which stupidities you will let slide, which you will rationalize away, and which you will rail against. And to be fair, this is true for like…everyone…but I’m just saying, when you’re a member of a group that kinda does perpetuate (unabashedly) things like patriarchy, heterosexism, etc., etc., then that’s what you will be defending at some point or another…unless your group identification changes. But you aren’t quite a New Order Mormon or anything like that, so I don’t see that.
Suzanne Star Trek may be more popular. But objectively, it doesn’t have the same strength of ethics, inspiring human narrative, longevity, transfromative power, or any of that.
The best it can boast is a heavily-devoted population of hobbyists.
There’s a reason hobbies are popular – because they offer an escape from reality and demand nothing of people. World of Warcraft demands nothing more than time from people – you log on, forget your job, your relationship worries, the mortgage, and bombings in Syria and escape for a while. It’s meant as an escape from reality.
Christianity has never been an escape from reality in the slightest. Yes, I know Christopher Hitchens begs to differ. But he never understood Christianity in the first place.
Christianity is probably one of the most unflinching face-to-face confrontations with human reality ever concocted. The bible is brutally honest about the depths to which human beings – even beings allied with God – can descend to. It looks the problems of the human condition full in the face and doesn’t blink.
Star Trek doesn’t really do that and never has except in rare moments (and even those are highly sanitized). This is why it has no real life beyond the hobby world.
People are passionate about their hobbies – to be sure. But it’s an acknowledged given that they don’t have the rigor to be taken seriously. No one ever wrote an ageless work of social relevance from their engagement in online gaming. But people have done so, and will do so from Christianity.
Because Christianity is not an escape in the end. It’s about responsible engagement in reality.
In fact, it engages reality probably more responsibly than a great deal of our modern secular fantasy of a future of uninterrupted human progress and betterment.
In the end, entertainment conceptualized as entertainment is simply different than thought systems originally conceptualized as a serious engagement with the reality of the human condition. The tooth fairy was never meant to be real in the first place – consequently, it has no depth of engagement with any important human themes. That makes it an irrelevant comparison to religion. Same for Star Trek.
Then why don’t YOU do this, Seth? Lashing out at others as “retarded” and defending immoral corporations because their critics irritate you is NOT “responsible engagement in reality.”
Your Christianity doesn’t seem to make you a better person. It seems to make you a bitter, mean, hypocritical person who announces with pleasure as you did @122 that you like being a troll.
Andrew, it’s a matter of the company I keep. I don’t encounter anti-gay pig-headedness that often these days.
I do however encounter a lot of pro-gay marriage pig-headedness. I imagine if I were on a different online venue, I’d be railing against what people call homophobia.
In fact, last year I had an extended debate with a conservative Evangelical on a now-defunct Christian forum that lasted nearly a week telling him why the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality, and confronting his attempts to character-assassinate one of the local gay commenters. Granted, I highly disliked the gay commenter’s online style myself. But I wasn’t going to sit there and let some bigot imply that he was only a homosexual because he’d been molested as a boy, and that he was trying to molest young boys himself.
It just depends on what I’m confronted with. And I don’t hang out in hives of conservative bigotry. Although a lot of my Mormon Facebook friends are starting to get on my nerves….
Seriously, if I see one more stupid NRA propaganda jpeg….
Seth @125:
Give it time. Plenty of “ageless works of social relevance” have emerged from someone’s engagement with “a hobby.” As an example, check out Aristotle’s “Poetics,” one of the most widely read works ever written, borne of Aristotle’s fondness for Greek drama.
re 125,
Seth,
I’m going to challenge your argument here that hobbies are escapist and religions aren’t.
First of all, religions offers dubious solutions and comforts to problems of reality. So, faced with the starkness of death, religion isn’t saying that people should confront it…people are saying that death can be conquered if only you will believe/do x/y/z.
To the extent these comforts and solutions are dubious (which is definitely a main contention here), the religions are escapist.
Secondly, hobbies (but more important, aesthetic media) aren’t necessarily escapist. (And for both religions and for hobbies/aesthetic media…it doesn’t have to be either/or…it can be both/and.) In other words, aesthetic media resonate with people to the extent that they are relatable and identifiable. You can’t do that unless you interface with reality. When media do not do this, they do not gain followings. They are seen as “out of touch,” “inaccessible,” etc., [Note that the realities being interfaced may nevertheless be *different*. In other words, the reality of aesthetic style is a different reality than that of content. At best you can argue that hobbies are tapping into truths about human enjoyment and nothing more…but I think this is an overstated case.]
re 127,
Seth,
I would also note that as a result of your group members, you have a different idea of what would constitute “anti-gay pigheadness” than someone else. Think about the times that you have denounced the use of the term “homophobe” — because per you, people aren’t necessarily afraid of homosexuality…to the contrary, they can have “rational” reasons for perpetuating heterosexism, and really, it’s the gay marriage supporters who are often (insert negative descriptors here).
I don’t deny that you probably call out excessive arguments when you see them — arguments that maybe even you could call “homophobic”…but the thing is that your current position defines what you will see as excessive.
Oh, I think homophobia exists.
I think there are guys (mostly guys) out there who really are repulsed by gay people, afraid of being hit on by them, and maybe even subconsciously worried they’ll actually LIKE being hit on.
I just think the term is misapplied.
I have to call foul on this statement:
There are many, many elements of Christianity that are escapist.
Matthew 11:28 “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
The concept of heaven is escapist. The Mormon Celestial Room in temples is escapist. The belief that sinners will be punished by god is escapist.
All of these “deny reality.”
Also, I just have to mention, since no one else has: the reason Star Trek doesn’t motivate people to create hospitals and charities is because everyone KNOWS it is NOT real. We recognize it is a fictional universe, which relegates it to hobby status. Aside from this one difference, it is precisely the same thing as religion. Religionists either don’t know religion is not real or believe it’s real.
Interestingly, we just let my son watch Star Trek for the first time in the last week. When we let him watch the first video, we explained to him that it was not real. When Mormons take their kids to church, do they explain to them that it’s not real? No. My many nieces and nephews really believe that they are praying to some dude in the sky at 3, 4, and 5 years old. My son doesn’t know what they are talking about and I’m sure in the next year or so he’s going to ask us why all of his cousins pretend to talk to a make believe person every so often. In all likelihood, I’ll explain it by saying, “You know how you have an imaginary friend. Yeah, they all do too. Yes, they’re old enough that they probably should have grown out of it by now. But they haven’t. And just like Mommy and Daddy let you pretend you had an imaginary friend, we let them pretend they have one too.”
profxm, you are only identifying one of two competing narratives found in the Bible.
The idea of zionist utopia and messianic delivery is in the Bible, to be sure. But even this is merely an extension of the rather hard-nosed practical conclusion that humanity is ultimately incapable of sorting itself out. A conclusion which has, as GK Chesterton pointed out, a lot more evidence for it than any starry-eyed secularist fantasies about neverending human progress. The idea that we need outside intervention isn’t so much an escape as an acceptance of human limitations.
But the messiah narrative isn’t the only one in the Bible. It’s constantly juxtaposed against the Exodus narrative. Contrary to popular belief – the story of Exodus is not one of God fixing everything for the children of Israel. It’s about the children of Israel being offered a chance by God, and repeatedly rejecting it. Only when actually putting in the hard work of becoming a civic society, do they get the “Promised Land.” And even then, its not a utopia on a platter, but something they are commanded to work for, to reform themselves for – to create their own heaven, rather than having it given to them. The rest of the Old Testament is about their failure to take these PRACTICAL measures to reform their society, rise up above the bloodthirsty cultures surrounding them, and become something better.
There’s a reason Martin Luther King Jr. picked the Exodus narrative to motivate his own people to the promised land of God-given human dignity. It’s a practical story about hard work and human confrontation with life’s difficulties. It’s not about God fixing everything. In fact, on each occasion God does miraculously intervene, it doesn’t fix things, but merely presents a new set of challenges. The focus is always on how the Israelites have problems and THEY have to fix them.
You can’t just focus on the concept of Messiah without acknowledging this practical civic component of the City of God as Augustine termed it.
I would like to take this opportunity to link to my most recently uploaded video from the days when I was actively practicing this hobby. And the last few from the series are coming soon!!!
I’m not going to disagree with you, Seth. But was I right to call you out on your statement? Put simply, Christianity very much has “escapist” elements in it. Your statement said it did not. While it may be a matter of interpretation, the escapist elements are clearly there.
re 131,
Seth
One thing to note is that most people don’t use homophobia exclusively in the “gay panic” sense. It’s kinda like how people will protest that they are not racist because they would never burn a cross in some black dude’s yards…well, racism has many facets.
re 132,
profxm
So, if we wanted to inculcate certain behaviors (e.g., creating hospitals and charities), then it would behoove us to keep people in the dark about the nature of religions, and to even convince them that it is totally real?
Even if religions aren’t very efficient for creating hospitals and charities, they would at least be more efficient than hobbies, which as you point out, don’t motivate people to create hospitals and charities because people know they are not real.
So, if someone like seth is talking about things like hospitals and charities, then that would be a meaningful difference between religions and hobbies…
You say.
“Aside from this one difference, it is precisely the same thing as religion”
But that difference makes a difference when it comes to hospitals, etc…
no, because they want mormonism to inspire their kids to create hospitals (so to speak) instead of just cosplaying. If the meaningful difference is, “When you think something is real, then you will be more inspired to do more for it,” then it seems like one would want to make as many people think that thing is real.
…and of course, that’s assuming that the parents “know” that it’s not real…but that’s the thing…the parents don’t “know” that. Because of all of these fruits, they “know” that it’s real too.
Andrew: Yep.
Or remove financial incentives for starting hospitals from religions so all hospitals are run by the government. That would work, too. 😉
profxm, it seems to be a popular notion in atheist circles that all charitable work and public service ought to be handled by the government.
I have some real problems with that kind of ethical neutering of the citizenship.
Andrew, I don’t want to tangent this discussion into gay issues, so I’m simply going to say I disagree with your analogy and leave it there.
profxm, it’s quite a different thing to say that Christianity is fundamentally escapist in the same sense World of Warcraft is, than it is to say that Christianity has some escapist elements in it.
And as I pointed out, even the “escapist” elements aren’t really so escapist as you suppose as first glance. They’re actually rather realistic in light of the human condition.
Oh, and I’ll allow that it’s completely possible to make a hobby out of your religion. People do that all the time.
Seth @139:
Surely there’s room for more discussion of gay issues here…. I would love to see Seth try to respond in more depth to Andrew’s critique of Seth’s homophobic behavior and statements. Given how prominent a feature it has been in many of Seth’s comments here, it seems worth exploring.
“No, it doesn’t boil down to that. It boils down to looking at what the religion has actually produced, the effects it’s had on my life and the lives of others, the art, music, literature, ideas, and so forth that it has produced.”
If one is to judge Mormonism by what it has produced art, music, literature, ideas, and “so forth” it must be an abysmal failure. Nor can the works of other religions be attached to LDS, Inc. as all those other denominations and their works are abominations. In terms of the corporal works of mercy, the percentage of money distributed as charity is laughably parsimonious when compared to its income. Additionally, the effect on individuals is not reliably verifiable. The good, kind, generous person may have those qualities irrespective or even in spite of her beliefs.
Actually vajra, the LDS Church distributes a fairly good amount of the proceeds as actual charity. Profxm did a blog post on this a while ago where he tried to compare the percentage of actual charitable aid donated by the LDS Church with that donated by one of the major Protestant national bodies.
What his numbers neglected to note was that the Protestant body in question didn’t pay for any of the building and local administrative costs. Those were handled by the local units.
Once you factor in the massive amount the LDS Church has to fork out in simply paying rent and utilities, their outlays are comparable to other churches in the US.
So are the Shriners a hobby or a religion?
And I can think of two science fiction religions. One is based in Hollywood, and the other, I can not disprove, went on an away mission on a spaceship in the Hale-Bopp comet.
And buying a telescope and looking at the comet is not empirical evidence of your theological claims, even if Heaven’s Gate believed it.
Or are they too small to count. They certainly were not around long.
What about Jainism? It’s one of the oldest religions, but there are only 4 million of them. But maybe it’s the influence it’s teachings has had on other religions that are more populous. I’m fond of non-violence and that blind men and the elephant story. Here’s my favorite version–“Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, ‘Men are flat.’ After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.”
I don’t think that the fundamental doctrine of Anekantavada is dependent on financing archaeological expeditions to find the tombs of the Six Blind Men or on asking God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.
Isn’t the fact that they’re all dead, and their predictions didn’t happen empirical evidence to be considered as well?
I’d say Jainism has done pretty well in the credibility department, considering, as you say – it’s effect on other world religions.
Heaven’s Gate is a complex topic. Hard to navigate.
The Body is only a vessel. I cannot disprove they are not on an away mission.
Rio DiAngelo was chosen to stay behind and spread the truth. Last I heard, he still believed.
And considering the current climatic shifts, the Earth, I cannot disprove, is being recycled. Clearly, this is empirical evidence that Do and Ti are the two.
Or perhaps there is a simpler explanation.
Whether you pick the simpler explanation or not is going to be determined by how convincing you find the rest of the movement and its work.
#117 @Parker,
Accepting the Book of Mormon entirely on faith is the requirement. Moroni is teaching the Nephite doctrine of faith confirmation. First you have faith, then you approach God in that faith and then He confirms your faith. “Ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.” This is the doctrine of seeing eye-to-eye. See the following for more information:
http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-role-of-angels-in-nephite-preaching/
Reading the Book of Mormon, disbelieving its veracity, and then asking God if its true with the expectation that God will prove you wrong is not the process Moroni was teaching, yet that is what many missionaries mistakenly believe.
The gospel given to the Nephites was complete and the BoM restores all the points that are missing from our Bibles.
They ought to make an easier and quicker way to format text…
LDS Anarchist @148:
Nope. That’s not what I was taught growing up, that’s not what I was taught at the MTC, that’s not what we taught investigators in my mission, that’s not what anyone I have ever known was taught.
You have it exactly backwards, Mr. Anarchist. How did you get it so wrong?
And if you can manage to be so very, very wrong about what the missionary discussions actually teach, why should anyone believe your claims and opinions on any other matter?