Comparisons

When you have no clue as to what you want to say

Moderator: Priests of Syrinx

User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

Big Blue Owl wrote: If there is anything inaccurate about it, please enlighten me.

If you are to live your life with blind faith in something so very fantastically magical, miracle-laden and evidenceless, you kinda have to accept some healthy, logical skepticism. Well, not HAVE to, but.....just realize that I never intend to insult you or anyone of any of the thousands of faiths on the planet.
Gee, thanks. "I respect you but you're SO stupid!" :roll: I know you didn't mean it to sound that way, but if you take a look at what you said... well, that's what you said. 8)

First off, I'm not into blind faith. To quote Thomas Jefferson,
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
T.J. had it right. God doesn't ask for blind faith.... that's what leaders of false religions ask for. God asks that we study His word and then put it to the test, while always communicating with Him (ie talking to Him, or praying AND listening) to seek His guidance and enlightenment.

As to "evidenceless", the longer I live, the more evidence I see every day of the divine in just about everything. I find evidence all over the place. :)

Now... many times I've run into the idea put out there that religious = uneducated. That has always bothered me. It just seemed so wrong. I'm just learning now why that stereotype even exists... and the reason I was oblivious to it. It's because I grew up in a very a-stereotypical segment of Christianity. This 1997 article explains what I'm talking about:
I'm sure that many of us, in our youth, especially during our educational phase of life, experienced a troubling conflict of religion and science. Often, attempts to reconcile religious teaching with scientific reasoning can be troubling to young people, and still can be a sensitive subject to adults. Part of the answer, I believe is in looking at those who are comfortable with both, having no conflict. Especially those who themselves are scientists, and have a background in religion. When I dug into this topic, I found some very striking, and yes, satisfying information.

First, we know that Christian churches have been in conflict with science in the past. The prior conflict of the Roman Catholic Church with science ended up placing Roman Catholicism in a losing position with regard to potential progress. Now, some fundamental and evangelical churches in America, taking a literalistic and narrow view of the Bible are rejecting science more and more. Instead, they encourage and incorporate new Special Creation "science" and modern interpretations which are plugged into the Bible to make it appear to fit certain scientific facts. They are also discouraging interpretive aspects of scientific problems within the Bible.

The revealing part of my inquest was the shocking number of scientific production in the U.S. per state. At the bottom end of the collection are mostly the states considered the "Bible Belt." The ones with the "fundamentalist," and literalistic accentuation. Their production is only about one-fourth that of the high end (per million white population according to the Thomson report; the other numbers of minorities were too low at the time apparently), which is the Northern states.
Shows you how sheltered I've been, I didn't even know that. Of course I knew about historic conflicts such as those faced byGalileo and such but...
Anyway, here's the interesting part:
But far and above all the rest is a surprising find. In fact the top state is so far above all the others, it's currently a full 21 percent higher, even though all the others are merely a few percentage points in between. What's even more revealing and unusual is the fact that one state could maintain such a lead for over fifty years. What's more surprising is the fact that this state, Utah, is one which the cultural force reveres God, Christ, Scriptures, missionary work, and a strong sense of religious tradition.

In 1990, the top scientific production states were:
Utah (1886 per million),
Idaho (1421 per million) and
Colorado (1246 per million).

And church affiliation of the Utah scientists were even more lopsided for the Latter day Saint population, Catholics, Unitarians, Orthodox, and Lutherans combined were smaller than the percentage of non-Mormon population. At the bottom was Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas. (164, 162, and 160 per million.)
Whoa! Really?
In 1995, the numbers for Utah were still impressive. Utah was still a significant leader in the production of scientists with 1685 (per million) while the second place state was Delaware with 1380. The median was Rhode Island with approximately 600 (on a graph) and Virginia was last with 295.

Moreover, the percentage of Utah LDS scientific production was still higher than the LDS population percentage; 75.9%. (Only 54.6% of Utah is LDS; essentially 36.6 percent MORE than it's share.)

Thus, it became obvious to me that Mormons hold not just a lead in scientific production, but hold a *very high* lead. So the significant question might be why this is so. I think looking at the responses of LDS scientists is a good way to find such an answer. In fact, such a study was conducted by a professor of Arizona State University, who was intrigued by the lopsided LDS scientific population. The results are rather conclusive. In brief, there are many reasons; Mormon leaders have always been pro-science, Mormon philosophy encompasses knowledge as a godly attribute, and the Mormon culture's acceptance of continuing revelation from God and openness to new insight.

The Mormon Factor, thus, is the only conclusion for the high scientific numbers. There are no other factors which would lend such a high number. In fact, such a factor has been proven. Even the percentage of the LDS Utah share confirms this.
I had no idea that the LDS view was so different in this regard.
But do the Mormon scientists have a strong faith? That question was also answered in this interesting study. Of the LDS scientists polled a significant 83% considered themselves strong believers, while those of other Christian faiths were significantly less, the next highest being 44%.

Further, the conviction within these believers that Jesus is a divine person of the Godhead was put to the same scientists (LDS and non-LDS Christians) and results were extremely lopsided. Of the LDS believing population, 91% had a "Very Strong" conviction of this, while all the others maintained a spread between "Weak" and "Very Strong," most of which was under a "Fair" conviction. (Catholics were the next highest.) Also, among these LDS scientists, over eighty-five percent felt that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Of the "Strong Believers" category of the scientists, almost ninety percent of the LDS felt that their religious doctrine and science could be harmonized. And even of the "Non-Believers" category, only 34% said no. Only 64% of "believing Christians" felt that religion and science could harmonize.
Guilty as charged. Though I'm not a scientist, I'm right in there with that 90%. Of course science and religion can be harmonized. The only reason they couldn't was if one or the other (or both) was being driven by an agenda. If you're really seeking truth...
Also, of those questioned if their religion had an influence on their perusal to become a scientist, 88.4% of the LDS said "yes," while only 42% of the other Christians felt that their religion had any influence. And twice the percentage of the LDS attended worship services, and twice the percentage of LDS scientists had a favorable attitude toward their church compared to all others.

Interestingly, the places where one might think that there would be the biggest conflict of religion and science, we actually find stronger believing LDS. (This, opposed to those who are not within the physical sciences are less believing among the LDS.) The largest percentage of Utah scientists are those in the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) Of those in the physical sciences of the non-LDS faiths (Christian) only about 41% were strong believers, while over twice this percentage of the LDS physical scientists were strong believers. It was in the social sciences that the drop of LDS believers was noticed, where the larger portion considered themselves "Nominal." The percentages of all other Christians was still about half of that of the LDS in these categories.

What I found insightful was the fact that 89.9% of the LDS believers felt that religion and science could face each other. And also nearly three times as many non-LDS Christians as LDS said that they were "Intensely Troubled" by the conflict of science and religion.

So it's obvious that Mormonism has a distinguishing position in the world as a science-producing and supporting religion.
The article goes on but that's enough for this discussion. I'll probably throw in the author's sources at the end for good measure.

But you get the idea. To me a testimony of God is both a spiritual and an intellectual process. I didn't realize that the culture in which I grew up was so unique. I feel badly for those mentioned who are "Intensely Troubled".

Anyway, sorry to have hi-jacked the thread. But I didn't want to simply not respond and allow what was troubling me to fester inside. You guys get back to your fun.

Oh yeah... sources:
Sources:
J.A. Thomsom, _Science and Religion_, NY, 1877;
W.A. Whitehouse, _Christian Faith and Scientific Attitude_, NY, 1952;
Alfred North Whitehead, _Science and the Modern World_, NY, 1925;
Harvey C. Lehman, _Scientific Eminence and Church Membership_, NY, 1931;
_Encyclopedia of Mormonism_, "Science and Scientists," MacMillan, NY, 1992;
E.L. Thorndike, _Science_, "Men of Science," August 1940;
Richard T. Wootton, _Saints and Scientists_, Mesa, 1995;
_Historical Statistics of the U.S._, US Dept. of Commerce, part 1, pp 18-52.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
Sir Myghin
Posts: 9148
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:12 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Sir Myghin »

Excellent Post Elf.
User avatar
Big Blue Owl
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light

Post by Big Blue Owl »

Thanks for taking the time to post that info. I am sorry to have opened that can of worms.
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
User avatar
Big Blue Owl
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light

Post by Big Blue Owl »

Gee, thanks. "I respect you but you're SO stupid!" Rolling Eyes I know you didn't mean it to sound that way, but if you take a look at what you said... well, that's what you said.
No, you are wrong about this as well. I want to quit the team now. :(
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
User avatar
Xanadu
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: My vortex.

Post by Xanadu »

Big Blue Owl wrote:Maybe the question is, "How much killer-kind did it take to get his eyes to glow red like that. :lol:
True...I am aware if what amount, how about you? :-D
We're all mad here!
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

Big Blue Owl wrote:
Gee, thanks. "I respect you but you're SO stupid!" Rolling Eyes I know you didn't mean it to sound that way, but if you take a look at what you said... well, that's what you said.
No, you are wrong about this as well. I want to quit the team now. :(
The team?
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
Sir Myghin
Posts: 9148
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:12 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Sir Myghin »

ElfDude wrote:
Big Blue Owl wrote:
Gee, thanks. "I respect you but you're SO stupid!" Rolling Eyes I know you didn't mean it to sound that way, but if you take a look at what you said... well, that's what you said.
No, you are wrong about this as well. I want to quit the team now. :(
The team?
The A team? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyz_2DEah4o
Post Reply