George Will on Huckabee

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I do understand, however, that there will be some issues where I may disqualify a person for a certain religious belief (believing a woman to be nothing more than an object, subject to the will of the master husband, for example). I would expect those disqualifying beliefs to necessarily correlate to enacting policies that I would find reprehensible. Maybe my lack of passionate concern for Huck's belief in a 6,000 year old earth correlates to my perception that it doesn't have much of an impact on his policy-making agenda.

One of the unfortunate things in the modern era is that candidates are so afraid to say what they will really do and are so full of meaningless vanilla platitudes that we are reduced to reading the tea leaves so to speak.

I'm curious though, what do you say to my argument above that there are some things which are spiritual in nature and neither provable nor disprovable and other things that can be refuted by reason and evidence? To me, a rejection of reason and evidence says something and this is completely apart from the belief in things that cannot be proved, other than by spiritual means.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

One of the unfortunate things in the modern era is that candidates are so afraid to say what they will really do and are so full of meaningless vanilla platitudes that we are reduced to reading the tea leaves so to speak.

I'm curious though, what do you say to my argument above that there are some things which are spiritual in nature and neither provable nor disprovable and other things that can be refuted by reason and evidence? To me, a rejection of reason and evidence says something and this is completely apart from the belief in things that cannot be proved, other than by spiritual means.

I agree with you to an extent, but I think you can always get around any argument that something can be disproven by simply resorting to "faith."

Example: Transubstantiation. It can be disproven. Cut someone's stomach open, and see if the bread turned into flesh of Christ.

Example: 6,000 year old earth. Just use some carbon dating.

Counters: If you were to cut someone open, God would just turn it back into bread since He wants you to believe on faith only.

God makes the earth appear older than 6,000 years old to try our faith (or countless other possible explanations).

I think the ability to "disprove" a religious belief only exists to the extent you are willing to doubt your belief in the first place.

Presumably you believe Christ and Peter walked on water. Science has shown categorically that people can't walk on water. Why do you believe they did in the face of so much evidence to the contrary? Because you aren't willing to doubt the initial premise, so you accept that the act of walking on the water was a miracle (i.e., an event that defies scientific evidence and experience). So why can't the age of the earth be a "miracle" as well? It can be, if you are willing to believe that it is, and holding such a belief doesn't seem to me to be any less rational than a belief in countless other miracles that Christians commonly accept as true.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree with you to an extent, but I think you can always get around any argument that something can be disproven by simply resorting to "faith."

Example: Transubstantiation. It can be disproven. Cut someone's stomach open, and see if the bread turned into flesh of Christ.

Example: 6,000 year old earth. Just use some carbon dating.

Counters: If you were to cut someone open, God would just turn it back into bread since He wants you to believe on faith only.

God makes the earth appear older than 6,000 years old to try our faith (or countless other possible explanations).

I think the ability to "disprove" a religious belief only exists to the extent you are willing to doubt your belief in the first place.

Presumably you believe Christ and Peter walked on water. Science has shown categorically that people can't walk on water. Why do you believe they did in the face of so much evidence to the contrary? Because you aren't willing to doubt the initial premise, so you accept that the act of walking on the water was a miracle (i.e., an event that defies scientific evidence and experience). So why can't the age of the earth be a "miracle" as well? It can be, if you are willing to believe that it is, and holding such a belief doesn't seem to me to be any less rational than a belief in countless other miracles that Christians commonly accept as true.

I see what you are saying. I agree that belief systems as self encapsulating and that there is an answer to absolutely everything.

Still, I maintain that there is a continuum here. On one end are the things that are believed notwithstanding a paucity of evidence and on the other are things that are believed in spite of the evidence.

I feel like my beliefs are all in spite of the the paucity of evidence and that this is faith. I don't think I believe anything in spite of the evidence. But perhaps I overlook something. Is there anything in mainstream LDS belief that you would characterize as being in spite of the evidence?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I see what you are saying. I agree that belief systems as self encapsulating and that there is an answer to absolutely everything.

Still, I maintain that there is a continuum here. On one end are the things that are believed notwithstanding a paucity of evidence and on the other are things that are believed in spite of the evidence.

I feel like my beliefs are all in spite of the the paucity of evidence and that this is faith. I don't think I believe anything in spite of the evidence. But perhaps I overlook something. Is there anything in mainstream LDS belief that you would characterize as being in spite of the evidence?

Yes. Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus rose a man from the dead after 3 days. Jesus walked on water. Moses parted the Red Sea. Mana fell from the sky so people could eat. The Pearl of Great Price was translated from Egyptian Papyri. I think there are lots of things we believe that would be considered "insane" by many rational people, if not most.

I think your belief that you don't believe anything that is directly contradicted by all rational evidence is likely held by most people (including those you would deem to believe something irrational).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Presumably you believe Christ and Peter walked on water. Science has shown categorically that people can't walk on water. Why do you believe they did in the face of so much evidence to the contrary? Because you aren't willing to doubt the initial premise, so you accept that the act of walking on the water was a miracle (i.e., an event that defies scientific evidence and experience). So why can't the age of the earth be a "miracle" as well? It can be, if you are willing to believe that it is, and holding such a belief doesn't seem to me to be any less rational than a belief in countless other miracles that Christians commonly accept as true.

You make some decent points, but I think it is disingenuous to put each of these items on a common level. I think you are distorting how science works. Despite what you say, you cannot definitively prove (for example) that Jesus did not walk on water. You can say that it would violate the law of gravity and the physics of surface tension in a fluid, but unless you were there at the time the event was said to have happened, you can't definitively prove that it did not occur. You don't know what methods and powers were available to Jesus. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is beyond 6000 years old. Why on earth would God create the earth 6000 years ago and then structure every bit of evidence to indicate otherwise? If that's the type of gymnastics one needs to perform to stick with that belief, then I am back to my original premise: such a person lacks judgment.

In other words, you are correct that both beliefs require faith. But in one case, one simply has to accept that one does not understand how God did it. In the other case, one has to ignore overwhelming evidence (presumably given by God) to the contrary. To me, those are fundamentally different issues. On the same continuum perhaps, but at opposite ends.

I am puzzled by how sympathetic you are to the age of the earth issue. What about a belief that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun (and everything else) rotates around the sun? This is biblical and was used against Galileo. Would you question someone's judgment who still held to this biblical belief?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You make some decent points, but I think it is disingenuous to put each of these items on a common level. I think you are distorting how science works. Despite what you say, you cannot definitively prove (for example) that Jesus did not walk on water. You can say that it would violate the law of gravity and the physics of surface tension in a fluid, but unless you were there at the time the event was said to have happened, you can't definitively prove that it did not occur. You don't know what methods and powers were available to Jesus. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is beyond 6000 years old. Why on earth would God create the earth 6000 years ago and then structure every bit of evidence to indicate otherwise? If that's the type of gymnastics one needs to perform to stick with that belief, then I am back to my original premise: such a person lacks judgment.

In other words, you are correct that both beliefs require faith. But in one case, one simply has to accept that one does not understand how God did it. In the other case, one has to ignore overwhelming evidence (presumably given by God) to the contrary. To me, those are fundamentally different issues. On the same continuum perhaps, but at opposite ends.

I am puzzled by how sympathetic you are to the age of the earth issue. What about a belief that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun (and everything else) rotates around the sun? This is biblical and was used against Galileo. Would you question someone's judgment who still held to this biblical belief?

I don't see much of a difference between walking on water and the age of the earth. We can definitively prove that man can not walk on water, right? So why is it rational to say that Jesus could (or Peter for that matter)? You note that it is because we can't say for certain that he didn't (because we weren't there) even though the evidence suggests he couldn't. But how is that different than the age of the earth? Sure, the evidence suggests it is way more than 6,000 years old, but we weren't there 6,000 years ago. So we can't know for sure. All we know is it looks impossible (just like it looks impossible to walk on water). Any deviation from that knowledge would require a miracle.

I suppose I am sympathetic to the age of the earth issue because I recognize that all religious belief, in the end, is "irrational" according to science. To disqualify a person based solely on an "irrational" religious belief is to disqualify all religious adherents (including some of our greatest leaders in the past- despite what Woot would claim). In particular, I suppose I am sensitive to the issue because Mormon beliefs are typically cast as being absurd, and Mormons have long been the subject of persecution based on beliefs that the majority deemed absurd. I think we need to be particularly cautious when mocking others for sincerely held religious beliefs.

I don't understand the 6,000 year old earth argument. I don't believe it is true at all. But I also don't see how it would affect a person's ability to govern at all, particularly where I can see how that person HAS governed in the past. Their previous actions as a civic leader seem far more relevant to me in deciding how to vote than their religious actions.

As I noted, there are some religious beliefs that I think WOULD directly impact their ability to govern or reason, and those are worth noting (again, with caution). I just don't see the age of the earth as being one of them.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't see much of a difference between walking on water and the age of the earth. We can definitively prove that man can not walk on water, right? So why is it rational to say that Jesus could (or Peter for that matter)? You note that it is because we can't say for certain that he didn't (because we weren't there) even though the evidence suggests he couldn't. But how is that different than the age of the earth? Sure, the evidence suggests it is way more than 6,000 years old, but we weren't there 6,000 years ago. So we can't know for sure. All we know is it looks impossible (just like it looks impossible to walk on water). Any deviation from that knowledge would require a miracle.

I suppose I am sympathetic to the age of the earth issue because I recognize that all religious belief, in the end, is "irrational" according to science. To disqualify a person based solely on an "irrational" religious belief is to disqualify all religious adherents (including some of our greatest leaders in the past- despite what Woot would claim). In particular, I suppose I am sensitive to the issue because Mormon beliefs are typically cast as being absurd, and Mormons have long been the subject of persecution based on beliefs that the majority deemed absurd. I think we need to be particularly cautious when mocking others for sincerely held religious beliefs.

I don't understand the 6,000 year old earth argument. I don't believe it is true at all. But I also don't see how it would affect a person's ability to govern at all, particularly where I can see how that person HAS governed in the past. Their previous actions as a civic leader seem far more relevant to me in deciding how to vote than their religious actions.

As I noted, there are some religious beliefs that I think WOULD directly impact their ability to govern or reason, and those are worth noting (again, with caution). I just don't see the age of the earth as being one of them.

Wow. That's just remarkable.

Let me try a different angle: BYU has taught for many years, openly and unapologetically, that the earth is far more than 6000 years old. And yet if a BYU faculty proclaimed that there is no way that Jesus could walk on water, he/she would probably be fired. Why do you suppose that is?

And you never answered my question about the sun rotating around the earth, BTW.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes. Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus rose a man from the dead after 3 days. Jesus walked on water. Moses parted the Red Sea. Mana fell from the sky so people could eat. The Pearl of Great Price was translated from Egyptian Papyri. I think there are lots of things we believe that would be considered "insane" by many rational people, if not most.

I think your belief that you don't believe anything that is directly contradicted by all rational evidence is likely held by most people (including those you would deem to believe something irrational).

I'm not sure you're seeing the distinction I'm trying to draw. All the things you have mentions, with the exception of the Papyri, cannot be disproved. Even with the Papyri I don't think most people at think point claim that anything was literally translated from there. On the other hand, the assertion that the earth is 6000 is easily refuted, ditto for the assertion that life did not evolve.

I get your point that all of it is fantastic, but I say that some things can be done plausibly defended and others can't. I think you have already said there are some things you think are nutty. Maybe we are just disagreeing about what goes into that category. The earth being 6000 years old is in that category to me. I probably go too far if I say that is a deal breaker but it is something legitimate to consider in my mind.

[woot]

I guess for me there's a difference between beliefs that can be readily disproved, and beliefs that, while irrational, at least fall into the gaps. Someone willing to believe that God deliberately made himself as difficult to believe in as possible by covering up any evidence of his creation is clearly beyond help with regard to evidence or reason.

Someone who is willing to shape his or her beliefs around what we know in order to attempt to make reality and religion jive just seems a lot more... honest, I guess.

I put the various miracle stories in the latter category. There's not great evidence that Jesus ever existed, but he could have. There's not great evidence that his life was anything close to what is described in the extant gospels, but it could have been, given certain supernatural assumptions. This sort of logic probably wouldn't win any debates, but for some reason I agree with it. I still think that the Jesus stories are extremely unlikely to be true, but I find a 6000 year-old world impossible. Extremely unlikely > impossible, therefore creationism is more absurd than Jesus walking on water.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by woot

I guess for me there's a difference between beliefs that can be readily disproved, and beliefs that, while irrational, at least fall into the gaps. Someone willing to believe that God deliberately made himself as difficult to believe in as possible by covering up any evidence of his creation is clearly beyond help with regard to evidence or reason.

Someone who is willing to shape his or her beliefs around what we know in order to attempt to make reality and religion jive just seems a lot more... honest, I guess.

I put the various miracle stories in the latter category. There's not great evidence that Jesus ever existed, but he could have. There's not great evidence that his life was anything close to what is described in the extant gospels, but it could have been, given certain supernatural assumptions. This sort of logic probably wouldn't win any debates, but for some reason I agree with it. I still think that the Jesus stories are extremely unlikely to be true, but I find a 6000 year-old world impossible. Extremely unlikely > impossible, therefore creationism is more absurd than Jesus walking on water.

This is essentially where I am except that I have faith that many of the things you characterize as irrational actually are true whereas you have rejected them on the same evidence. I understand where those who don't agree there is a distinction are coming from logically, but for me I require that there be two categories, otherwise I don't see how it works for me. I can believe almost anything that, however unlikely, is plausible. I have not yet confronted anything that requires me to completely abandon my reason an common sense to believe. Nothing along the lines of "the earth is flat."

I actually think that the church has slowly discarded a number of things that would have fit that category so I am optimistic that the day is never coming. I'm pretty sure I would exercise my faith, but it would require more humility that I have at the moment.