Internal Philosophy vs. External observation

[shunyadragon]

And maybe it seems zany to you because you're trusting inaccurate sources for your information on what the religion actually teaches. Just saying....

The LDS Church does not support the belief in evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

I suppose in the same way not reading a whole post is.

The bottom line is the LDS Church does not support the belief in the science of evolution, this it fails to be the 'correct' religion in terms of science, or remotely relevant to science and the modern world, .

 

[Katzpur]

Unfortunately scientific sanity represents only 48% of Americans. We are embarrassingly low as far as the countries of the Western world.

As for the 52% of Americans who supposedly do not accept the science of evolution, I believe they are misguided. Being misguided, however, is not the same thing as being insane. But then maybe you're just one of those people who likes to pin labels like "insane" on anyone who is of a different opinion than you (regardless of the subject).

Important question: Do you accept the science of evolution?

Yes, I absolutely do.

BYU may be owned and operated by LDS Church, but it does not represent the LDS Church, which considering the citations I gave and there are many more, the LDS Church strongly discourages acceptance of evolution.

BYU is funded solely by the LDS Church and instructors there would not be teaching evolution without the approval of the Church's leadership. Furthermore, the LDS Church is a major supporter of the Museum of Natural History on the campus of the University of Utah. If the LDS Church was in any way "anti-science," it would not be contributing significant amounts of money to facilitate the display of scientific findings on prehistoric man, dinosaurs, etc.

A major reason BYU teaches evolution is because most of the students are not Mormons and they have science departments, and they want their degrees to recognized by national standards.

That is absolute nonsense, and you cannot provide one shred of evidence that this is the case. 98.5% of the student body at BYU is LDS.

 

[Katzpur]

The LDS Church does not support the belief in evolution.

Whatever. I was responding to Kilgore Trout's reference to Mormonism as "zany." I could be wrong, but I don't think he was referring to the subject of evolution at all.

It is not the role of a religious organization to either support or oppose scientific theories or findings. That's not the purpose of religion. Individual members of the Church's leadership have varying opinions on the subject of evolution, and that's totally okay. With respect to matters of a spiritual nature, they see eye-to-eye. It is entirely possible to be a faithful Mormon -- even a Mormon holding a high position of leadership in the Church -- and to believe in evolution. You can argue all you want to the contrary, and I'm not going to bother repeating myself time and time again. If you choose to believe that the LDS Church has any kind of an official position on the subject of evolution, I'm sure there's nothing I can say to change your mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whatever. I was responding to Kilgore Trout's reference to Mormonism as "zany." I could be wrong, but I don't think he was referring to the subject of evolution at all.

It is not the role of a religious organization to either support or oppose scientific theories or findings. That's not the purpose of religion. Individual members of the Church's leadership have varying opinions on the subject of evolution, and that's totally okay. With respect to matters of a spiritual nature, they see eye-to-eye. It is entirely possible to be a faithful Mormon -- even a Mormon holding a high position of leadership in the Church -- and to believe in evolution. You can argue all you want to the contrary, and I'm not going to bother repeating myself time and time again. If you choose to believe that the LDS Church has any kind of an official position on the subject of evolution, I'm sure there's nothing I can say to change your mind.

Changing my mind is not the issue. It is the documented evidence of the beliefs of the LDS Church that are the issue of what guidance the church provides its believers. I cited several sources that document that the LDS Church opposes the science of evolution. I can cite more. The polls document that only 22% of Mormons accept the science of evolution. This is the same problem with other churches whose guidance to the believers, which is to reject the science of evolution. The only church that has worse ignorance among believers is the Jehovah Witnesses. The Seventh Day Adventists also actively reject evolution and heavily fund the Discovery Institute.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The bottom line is the LDS Church does not support the belief in the science of evolution, this it fails to be the 'correct' religion in terms of science, or remotely relevant to science and the modern world, .

I think the bottom line is that you did not read my whole initial post, or, failed to comprehend it.

 

[Katzpur]

Changing my mind is not the issue. It is the documented evidence of the beliefs of the LDS Church that are the issue of what guidance the church provides its believers. I cited several sources that document that the LDS Church opposes the science of evolution. I can cite more. The polls document that only 22% of Mormons accept the science of evolution. This is the same problem with other churches whose guidance to the believers, which is to reject the science of evolution. The only church that has worse ignorance among believers is the Jehovah Witnesses. The Seventh Day Adventists also actively reject evolution and heavily fund the Discovery Institute.

Regardless of what your poll indicates, the LDS Church doesn't tell its members that accepting evolution is wrong. That's all I was trying to say.

Also, I think the way a question is posed can make a difference in how people might answer. You asked if I believe in evolution. I said "yes." Had you asked if I believe in a Creator, I would have also answered, "yes." I suspect (though I may be wrong) that you'd have then told me that I can't do both. I think that, a lot of the time, when people are asked, "Do you believe in evolution?" they assume that they are really being asked "Do you believe in a Creator?" Then they answer the question that was not even asked. They say, "No, I don't believe in evolution," because they assume that what is really being questioned is their belief in God.

 

[Quintessence]

An unenlightened state is basically willed ignorance and an enlightened state sees the world as objective as it can.
This should also answer the second question in the series.

I'm not sure that it does. It is not uncommon that I decide to be willfully ignorant of certain things because they are counter to my values, ruin my life experiences, or are just things I am not interested in. I'd wager it's not uncommon for everyone, really. We only have so much time to invest in things, and we have to select what it is we want to pay attention to. That means shutting out the noise we don't want to hear, or being in a state of willful ignorance.

Further, I would seriously question the appropriateness of calling a so-called "objective" perspective alone "enlightened" as it if has a monopoly on said term or is the One True Path. Anything that smacks of One True Path is an automatic turn-off for me and, if I may be so bold, a sign of anything but enlightenment.

The western world primarily, which is why we need to assist other countries in technological and educational development.

By this, I take it you find it acceptable to destroy these cultures and their ways of life on the assumption that yours is superior or the correct one? And that anyone who doesn't follow your enlightened way is a primitive savage, basically?

Yeah, things like this are kinda the reason why One True Path rhetoric really rub me the wrong way. Ethnocentrism is an ugly thing, I think.

Why would they not want to use those resources?

Perhaps because they don't want to be indoctrinated into your culture because they like theirs just fine?

If science automatically proves something to be false why should anyone believe it?

Because the sciences hardly have a monopoly on truth and wisdom. I suppose adherents of Scientism would disagree there, but Scientism makes me cringe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Regardless of what your poll indicates, the LDS Church doesn't tell its members that accepting evolution is wrong. That's all I was trying to say.

Your neglecting the references I gave which were clear and specific, and the LDS Church rejects evolution. Do I need to provide more references?

Also, I think the way a question is posed can make a difference in how people might answer. You asked if I believe in evolution. I said "yes." Had you asked if I believe in a Creator, I would have also answered, "yes." I suspect (though I may be wrong) that you'd have then told me that I can't do both. I think that, a lot of the time, when people are asked, "Do you believe in evolution?" they assume that they are really being asked "Do you believe in a Creator?" Then they answer the question that was not even asked. They say, "No, I don't believe in evolution," because they assume that what is really being questioned is their belief in God.

The bold above does not represent the nature of the polls and how people responded to the choices.

It is obvious you are not aware of the several different polls, and if you will notice in this polls involving many different choices including the Creationism of ~10,000 years. Considering the response difference between the different churches it is well understood that Theistic Evolution is an option for those who believe in the science of evolution.

 

[Katzpur]

Your neglecting the references I gave which were clear and specific, and the LDS Church rejects evolution.

And you're ignoring the fact that the university which is owned and operated by the LDS Church teaches evolution. Whether you choose to believe me or not, I can assure you that there is nothing taught at BYU that contradicts LDS theology. I am quite certain that the LDS Church's teachings would categorically reject the idea of life evolving independently of a Creator. Theistic evolution (including the idea of a very old earth) is another matter entirely.

Do I need to provide more references?

Only if it makes you happy, and it apparently does. I've said all I'm going to say on the subject, though, so don't be looking for any responses from me when you continue to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[LukeS]

"We have knowledge of gravity, therefore we should scrap all sacred institutions" is an incomplete argument.