cinepro's excellent adventure

[The Dude]

Certainly the scientific method IS the way to analyze such claims -- but it's got to be done right.

I'm with you there. Shoddy research sucks for everybody.

When dealing with intentional fraud, even good method and honest researchers are prone to be fooled. When "spirit mediums" are being tested, a professional magician should sit in.

[Sethbag]

Would you nominate The Amazing Randi? :-)

[The Dude]

Would you nominate The Amazing Randi? :-)

Sure, or Penn & Teller.

[Mister Scratch]

This thread reminds me of a post of Prof. Peterson's, in which he was endeavoring to disarm caricatures relating to Kolob:

If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.

In other words, everyone is entitled to their own stupidity. (I guess that is what he is saying, anyhow.)

[The Dude]

This thread reminds me of a post of Prof. Peterson's, in which he was endeavoring to disarm caricatures relating to Kolob:

If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.

In other words, everyone is entitled to their own stupidity. (I guess that is what he is saying, anyhow.)

That's relativism for you. On the boards, Dan plays an Internet Mormon, not a Chapel Mormon. Pahoran typically plays the same part; I think it is significant that he hasn't come back to defend his ChapelMormon-esque claim that he knows the difference between silly superstition and real faith.

[Mister Scratch]

This thread reminds me of a post of Prof. Peterson's, in which he was endeavoring to disarm caricatures relating to Kolob:

If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.

In other words, everyone is entitled to their own stupidity. (I guess that is what he is saying, anyhow.)

That's relativism for you. On the boards, Dan plays an Internet Mormon, not a Chapel Mormon. Pahoran typically plays the same part; I think it is significant that he hasn't come back to defend his ChapelMormon-esque claim that he knows the difference between silly superstition and real faith.

Well said, Duder. You want to place bets as to how long it will take before the Krispy Kreme King responds to our assertions over on the fittingly named MADboard? E.g., "Over on another board, a certain poster is claiming that I am a relativist. Well, blah blah blah..."

[The Dude]

You want to place bets as to how long it will take before the Krispy Kreme King responds to our assertions over on the fittingly named MADboard? E.g., "Over on another board, a certain poster is claiming that I am a relativist. Well, blah blah blah..."

No sir! That would be too much like goading him to respond. LOL

[grayskull]

If our doctrine offends you or strikes you as stupid, avert your eyes. You probably hold opinions that I would regard as stupid. The difference is that I don't care whether you hold stupid opinons. That's your right, and it's my right to ignore them.

This is hilarious. How about the most obvious? I have a new product. I spend millions of dollars - or more - every year promoting this product. I have 50,000 fulltime employees knocking on doors selling the product which involves a lifetime commitment for the buyer. The millions of registered buyers of my product are required by recitation of binding oaths to give their opinions on the product at every opportunity and in fact convince everyone they meet to become registered buyers and take the same binding oaths upon themselves. My 50,000 fulltime employees in fact work extended workdays, often 16 hours, doing nothing but giving their opinions on my new product. It is seen as a great tragedy within my organization if even the neighborhood milkman "gets away" without being exposed to my organization's product and our opinions on it.

Now, we know you have your own opinions on many things. But we aren't interested in them. We don't care one way or another what those opinions are. All we are interested in is infiltrating as many homes and communities as we can with our own opinions. We even have metaphors that suggest we will drown the whole earth in the literature which expresses our opinions. We expect every living person to accept our opinions or suffer the consequences and we will continue to unload our opinions on them even after they die, even performing our binding oaths on them at that time if they had not yet subjected themseves to this fate in life.

Something terrible has come to our attention. Something shocking and horrifying. We are indeed, amazed to discover that not only are there many inhabitants of the earth not adopting our opinions for themselves, but publically criticizing the sacred things we're shouting from the rooftops! As evidence of the truthfullness of our cause, we must point out that this is the first time in history that an organization which dedicates its existence to virally marketing its products and opinions has ever been openly disagreed with. One would no doubt expect that if Satan himself were not somehow involved, that we, like other large organizations who have flooded the streets with its emissaries, would merely be ignored and overlooked by those who disagree with what we're demanding them to conform their lives to. As examples of entities which exist significantly to market themselves: the Catholic Church, Amway, Neo-Nazism, the Army, Kirby, Al Queda, Time Magazine, Ford, NASCAR, The late Ana Nichole, and the San Diego Chargers. Strikingly, none of these entities has ever received public criticism. No one has ever contradicted, challenged, or ridiculed their opinions. Why is it so different for us?

[beastie]

I admit labeling the responses given as generally embracing relativism was somewhat lazy. However, let’s look at your response in particular:

We humans haven't even been able to come to a concenus when defining "reality" as it relates to the physical universe (particularly the more astract and subjective the notions, like "real love", "real penetance and contrision", "real depression and anxiety", "real success", etc.). So, I would suppose it even less likely that one could gain a concensus in defining what is real in terms of spiritual reality (where, as I see it, our respective spiritual epistmologies are, in general, considerably less developed than our physical/secular epistemologies).

Perhaps postmodernism is a better label for this than relativism. Human beings can come to no consensus about reality or the items contained therein. So we simply have to respect anyone’s choice, no matter how it seems to contradict what we perceive as reality, because, after all, we have no consensus of what constitutes reality to begin with.

Since postmodernism seems to include a certain degree of relativism by necessity, then the lazy labeling can perhaps be forgiven, and the larger point addressed.

I said:

So am I to guess that your answer to cinepro's question is no, one cannot explain how to tell the difference between silly superstition and real faith?

Wade replied:

No, you are not to guess that. Rather, you would be correct to guess that there is no shared methodologies which would enable me or anyone else to bring the diverse audience to a concensus in distinguishing real faith from silly superstition. In short, it can't be done.

In other words, there is no objective method by which people may be able to discern real faith from silly superstition. The methodology is entirely dependent upon the belief system already embraced by the individuals.

Houston, we have a problem.