• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Internal Philosophy vs. External observation

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings, causing the rational and empirical to coincide. There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us. Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us. Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

So, as an exercise/journey, release your preconceived notions and start from the ground up.

Questions or Comments?
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings, causing the rational and empirical to coincide. There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us. Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us. Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

So, as an exercise/journey, release your preconceived notions and start from the ground up.

Questions or Comments?

By this methodology, Mormonism is clearly the correct religion. If we can trust Joseph Smith's accounts, then all is already lost.

(To be fair, as zany as Mormonism is, they are among the most friendly and genuine people, as a group, from any religious group I've encountered.)
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings, causing the rational and empirical to coincide. There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us. Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us. Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

So, as an exercise/journey, release your preconceived notions and start from the ground up.

Questions or Comments?

The problem is that not only are we not objective but nothing is objective. Everything is in constant flux although we can't see all the changes moment to moment nothing is the same. Rationally we can't cope with a constantly changing environment so we, as a boss once said to me "create are own circle of influence(Objectivity)". We can't know and deal with everything so we limit what we will deal with and everything outside the circle is a perspective we have built. Each of us being unique has a different size circle. Some of us can handle big circles, some of us have tiny circles.
 
Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

Science isn't going to reveal a religion/ideology to us.

I'm not even sure what a truly 'scientific' worldview would actually be. It probably wouldn't be something we would like all that much though.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

You had me following you up until the part where you start making value judgements with that last sentence here. It may be helpful if you expand on a few things here:

  • What is an 'enlightened state' and by extension, what is an 'unenlightened state?'
  • Why is an 'enlightened state' desirable over an 'unenlightened state?' How does this 'unenlightened state' cause suffering? What if someone is perfectly happy and content in this as-named 'unenlightened state?' Where does the 'enlightened state' cause suffering?
  • What do you mean by 'the world?' Surely you do not mean the entire planet and all of its biotic and abiotic aspects? What, specifically, do you mean there?

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings...

Why? Isn't it inappropriate or a hinderance to apply more objectivity to many types of life experiences?


There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us.

What are these "resources?" Are you sure they are readily available and usable by "us?" Who is "us?" Who really has access to these resources? And if they have access, is the person able to meaningfully use those resources? If the resource is a book, are they literate or educated enough to understand it? What if someone doesn't want to use these resources?


Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us.

Why? What is a "religious belief?" What is a "spiritual belief?" Depending on what you mean by those terms, wouldn't attempting to make those "scientific" just result in pseudoscientific rubbish?


Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

"Correct" religion? I'm not sure I understand how that word applies.

All questions just to get you thinking and refining your argumentation. :D
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
By this methodology, Mormonism is clearly the correct religion. If we can trust Joseph Smith's accounts, then all is already lost.

(To be fair, as zany as Mormonism is, they are among the most friendly and genuine people, as a group, from any religious group I've encountered.)

I do not consider the LDS church to be the correct religion (church?) concerning the science of evolution..

First, it does not take a positive position on the science of evolution. The neutral position in a recent statement relying on personal views allows for inconsistency in the guidance for the believers allows older guidance on the subject against the science of evolution to stand as the standard.

From: "Mormonism and science/Evolution/Official stance"
"The LDS Church has stated that it "has no official position on evolution, and each member is entitled to his or her own personal views on the subject".

Second, over the 20th century the LDS Church has been inconsistent on the matter of science and evolution.

Joseph F Smith -
"Recently there was some trouble ... in one of the leading Church schools—the training college of the Brigham Young University—where three of the professors advanced certain theories on evolution as applied to the origin of man, and certain opinions on "higher criticism," as conclusive and demonstrated truths. This was done although it is well known that evolution and the "higher criticism" ... are in conflict on some matters with the scriptures, including some modern revelation. ... The Church, on the contrary, holds to the definite authority of divine revelation which must be the standard; and that, as so-called "science" has changed from age to age in its deductions, and as divine revelation is truth, and must abide forever, views as to the lesser should conform to the positive statements of the greater. ... Philosophic theories of life have their place and use, but it is not in the classes of the Church schools, and particularly are they out of place here or anywhere else when they seek to supplant the revelations of God."

Ezra Taft Benson

"As president of the church, Ezra Taft Benson, gave an April 1981 conference address in which he stated that "the theory of man’s development from lower forms of life" is a "false idea".[62] In 1988, he published a book counseling members of the church to use the Book of Mormon to counter the theories of evolution. He wrote that "we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in ... organic evolution.[63] In 1988, Benson published another book that included his earlier warnings[64] about the "deceptions" of Charles Darwin. He wrote:[65]

As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like ... Charles Darwin."

General Conference
The church has published several general conference talks discussing evolution. In the October 1984 conference apostle Boyd Packer stated that "no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles" as well as affirming that "those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research."[15] In the April 2012 conference apostle Russell Nelson discussed the human body stating "some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere". He then compared this to an "explosion in a printing shop produc[ing] a dictionary"."

The result of the inconsistent guidance of the LDS Church the number of believers who support some version of the science of evolution is only ~22%.

From: Percentage of Mormons Who Accept Evolution

"If the Pew Forum’s sample of Latter-day Saints is representative of the larger Mormon population, then it appears that 22% of us believe that humanity evolved from lower life forms. This result is in line with my expectation that about 2 out of every 10 Latter-day Saint accepts that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved. Note that the national average for accepting common descent is 48%."
 

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings, causing the rational and empirical to coincide. There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us. Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us. Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

So, as an exercise/journey, release your preconceived notions and start from the ground up.

Questions or Comments?

Philosophy is not solely internal.

Science is a form of philosophy called natural philosophy.
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings, causing the rational and empirical to coincide. There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us. Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us. Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

So, as an exercise/journey, release your preconceived notions and start from the ground up.

Questions or Comments?

Religion doesn't really have to be based on science. Science is a term for observing the previously or currently unknowable and drawing conclusions from it. Even science will have its flaws. Religion is alignment based on observation, while science is fact-based and only biased if approached with bias.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
The problem is that not only are we not objective but nothing is objective. Everything is in constant flux although we can't see all the changes moment to moment nothing is the same. Rationally we can't cope with a constantly changing environment so we, as a boss once said to me "create are own circle of influence(Objectivity)". We can't know and deal with everything so we limit what we will deal with and everything outside the circle is a perspective we have built. Each of us being unique has a different size circle. Some of us can handle big circles, some of us have tiny circles.
Sounds like everything is impermanent. What are your thoughts on Buddhism?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Internally we all have a perspective that we sort of impress upon our world. It's just a fact of life that none of us can be completely objective so we rationalize the world around us through a preconceived belief system. These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

Although we are rational beings, we should strive to be more objective beings, causing the rational and empirical to coincide. There should be no doing philosophy with the mind only with all the resources that are available to us. Religious belief and science are not necessarily at odds, spiritual beliefs must be based on the observable science in front of us. Therefore, we should be able to determine the correct religion based on what science reveals to us.

So, as an exercise/journey, release your preconceived notions and start from the ground up.

Questions or Comments?

We are not objective beings. Why strive to be something we are not? Isn't it a preconceived notion that we should strive to be more objective?

We could also embrace our non-objectivity if this is what we are. To be as creative and willful as possible. Reality, whatever it happens to be will limit us, but I don't think anybody knows exactly what these limitations are.

As we learn to create life, to program life. To create an experience of subjective existence according to our will. Science allows greater creativity, greater control over our subjective experience. We not only discover what is observable, we can also create what is observable. Our experience of reality is very malleable. The ground we stand on is the one we subjectively create.

I understand your desire for truth, I think, but I believe the truth we find is the truth we create and I agree they are real limitations to that but I don't think we really know what those limitations are at this point.

I think the truth may end up forever changing as we learn to be come more creative. For example, computers are now our truth. Traveling to the moon is now our truth. The ground has changed.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
What is an 'enlightened state' and by extension, what is an 'unenlightened state?'
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.
What do you mean by 'the world?' Surely you do not mean the entire planet and all of its biotic and abiotic aspects? What, specifically, do you mean there?
Specifically humanity.
Why? Isn't it inappropriate or a hinderance to apply more objectivity to many types of life experiences?
No, I don't believe objectivity is as much along the lines of the idea of "It's all just matter in motion" like many anti theists or agnostics would say. It need not be robotic.
What are these "resources?"
Well, for one, the internet. Books, movies, culture, education, it's all readily available to help one break the mold of nominal ignorance.
Who really has access to these resources?
The western world primarily, which is why we need to assist other countries in technological and educational development.
What if someone doesn't want to use these resources?
Why would they not want to use those resources?
If science automatically proves something to be false why should anyone believe it?
Depending on what you mean by those terms, wouldn't attempting to make those "scientific" just result in pseudoscientific rubbish?
Search Shiva black hole on youtube.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
(To be fair, as zany as Mormonism is, they are among the most friendly and genuine people, as a group, from any religious group I've encountered.)
And maybe it seems zany to you because you're trusting inaccurate sources for your information on what the religion actually teaches. Just saying....
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
From: "Mormonism and science/Evolution/Official stance"
"The LDS Church has stated that it "has no official position on evolution, and each member is entitled to his or her own personal views on the subject".
To me, this is precisely the stance a religion should take.

The result of the inconsistent guidance of the LDS Church the number of believers who support some version of the science of evolution is only ~22%.

From: Percentage of Mormons Who Accept Evolution

"If the Pew Forum’s sample of Latter-day Saints is representative of the larger Mormon population, then it appears that 22% of us believe that humanity evolved from lower life forms. This result is in line with my expectation that about 2 out of every 10 Latter-day Saint accepts that Adam and Eve’s bodies evolved. Note that the national average for accepting common descent is 48%."
When you use the words "national average," though, are you referring to the national average of Christians, of theists in general, or of pretty much everybody, including atheists? In other words, I'd be flabbergasted to hear that 48% of evangelical Christians accept evolution. I'd expect the total to be close to 5%.

Evolution, by the way, is taught at BYU, the university owned and operated by the LDS Church.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
These belief systems keep the world in an unenlightened state, to where the world suffers because of them.

All belief systems? Have you investigated all of them? (Some have the very goal of enlightenment.)

There are many people born into 'no belief system' so which belief system is their preconceived belief system?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
To me, this is precisely the stance a religion should take.

Your citing only one part of the references I cited, and it may 'leave it up to individual believer,' but the references, and there are more fundamentally oppose the science of evolution, which results in only 22% Mormons believing in the science of evolution.

When you use the words "national average," though, are you referring to the national average of Christians, of theists in general, or of pretty much everybody, including atheists? In other words, I'm flabbergasted to hear that 48% of them accept evolution. I'd expect the total to be close to 5%. [/quote]

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

Important question: Do you accept the science of evolution?

The polls include all Americans regardless of belief.

Evolution, by the way, is taught at BYU, the university owned and operated by the LDS Church.

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. 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.
 
Top