5 ms·

Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all a

Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.

mholt 11y ago
We're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ http://mi.byu.edu/ When you used BYU as a source, it became about beliefs. Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers which disqualifies them as sources.
  - mholt 11y ago
    > Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers How do you explain this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_University_alumni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_Universi... - BYU scholars have just as much impact for good in this world as any other accredited university. I've had BYU professors who are not Mormon. How do you explain that?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      It doesn't matter if there's a few there, you can't have a few good apples in a bad bunch. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic, you have to be one at a real university, i.e. a non-religious one. Religious universities are oxymoron's.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  This claim seems very strongly to suggest a system of belief that is not shared by all: "...the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says..."
  - mholt 11y ago
    A story is allowed to state its own setting, fictional or not. Remember not to confuse date of publication with date of events within it.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      I think the key difference is in "originates in" vs. "claims to originate in." If you said, "The book claims to originate in 600BC," or, "The story within the book is set in 600BC Jerusalem," there would be less objection.
    - pluma 11y ago
      If I wrote a book about the Norman invasion today in Germany, saying the book "originates ~1000 CE in England" would at least be extremely misleading, no matter how factual any claims in the book might actually be.
trav4225 11y ago
The statement "all are extremely biased" is a bit... biased. ;-)
- bduerst 11y ago
  They're talking about bias in apologetics, not "all" or "everyone".
  - trav4225 11y ago
    I'm aware of that. :)
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Didn't seem like it. You paraphrased their argument as "all".
      - trav4225 11y ago
        Sorry, I guess we're misunderstanding each other. I was simply quoting the commenter who said, precisely, that in the realm of apologetics, believers "all are extremely biased by their beliefs". Anyway, I merely intended it as a friendly jab. :)
- gnaritas 11y ago
  No, it isn't. All people of faith have bias, you can't have faith and not be biased because faith is a pre-existing belief absent evidence.
c0achmcguirk 11y ago
It follows from your reasoning that it would be unwise to follow a scientist who believes in science, then.
- jeena 11y ago
  How does one "believe" in science?
  - c0achmcguirk 11y ago
    By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is unavoidable and this is where faith comes in.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... --- I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction. Sure, scientists will expect the future to be similar to the past (because the present is like the past, and the past was like the more distant past, etc.), but they will also test that expectation with continued experiments.
      - c0achmcguirk 11y ago
        > I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

mholt 11y ago

We're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?

gnaritas 11y ago
> You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ http://mi.byu.edu/ When you used BYU as a source, it became about beliefs. Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers which disqualifies them as sources.
- mholt 11y ago
  > Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers How do you explain this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_University_alumni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_Universi... - BYU scholars have just as much impact for good in this world as any other accredited university. I've had BYU professors who are not Mormon. How do you explain that?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    It doesn't matter if there's a few there, you can't have a few good apples in a bad bunch. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic, you have to be one at a real university, i.e. a non-religious one. Religious universities are oxymoron's.
nitrogen 11y ago
This claim seems very strongly to suggest a system of belief that is not shared by all: "...the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says..."
- mholt 11y ago
  A story is allowed to state its own setting, fictional or not. Remember not to confuse date of publication with date of events within it.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I think the key difference is in "originates in" vs. "claims to originate in." If you said, "The book claims to originate in 600BC," or, "The story within the book is set in 600BC Jerusalem," there would be less objection.
  - pluma 11y ago
    If I wrote a book about the Norman invasion today in Germany, saying the book "originates ~1000 CE in England" would at least be extremely misleading, no matter how factual any claims in the book might actually be.

trav4225 11y ago

The statement "all are extremely biased" is a bit... biased. ;-)

bduerst 11y ago
They're talking about bias in apologetics, not "all" or "everyone".
- trav4225 11y ago
  I'm aware of that. :)
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Didn't seem like it. You paraphrased their argument as "all".
    - trav4225 11y ago
      Sorry, I guess we're misunderstanding each other. I was simply quoting the commenter who said, precisely, that in the realm of apologetics, believers "all are extremely biased by their beliefs". Anyway, I merely intended it as a friendly jab. :)
gnaritas 11y ago
No, it isn't. All people of faith have bias, you can't have faith and not be biased because faith is a pre-existing belief absent evidence.

c0achmcguirk 11y ago

It follows from your reasoning that it would be unwise to follow a scientist who believes in science, then.

jeena 11y ago
How does one "believe" in science?
- c0achmcguirk 11y ago
  By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is unavoidable and this is where faith comes in.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... --- I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction. Sure, scientists will expect the future to be similar to the past (because the present is like the past, and the past was like the more distant past, etc.), but they will also test that expectation with continued experiments.
    - c0achmcguirk 11y ago
      > I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]