More on Romney's Mormonism

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you misread his article, SU. He notes that he would be fine with a Catholic or Jew because their beliefs are based on ideas formed "eons ago," in contrast to the recent, transparent "fraud" of Smith. How this makes any logical sense is beyond me. If he has a problem with Romney as president because Romney holds "irrational" views on religion, how could he possibly not have an issue with every other president the nation has ever had (almost all of whom were protestants)? Religion, by its nature, requires faith. Such a requirement, scientifically, always appears "irrational."

Of course, science doesn't do much better in comparison. Science requires faith as well, even if most scientists wouldn't acknowledge it. In order to reach any scientific conclusion, we have to begin with certain assumptions and go from there. That those assumptions haven't been "disproven" does not make them "real" or "true."

The creation of the universe is a perfect illustration of this point. Most scientists would suggest it is "rational" to believe in the Big Bang theory. But is it rational? To accept that theory, we have to accept that there were two enormous rocks that collided with each other, given an infinite amount of free space in which to roam. What are the mathematical odds of such a collision? Where did those rocks come from? Have they always existed? If not, how were they created? Science teaches us that things can neither be created nor destroyed. Were they created from other matter? If so, where did that matter come from? What are the mathematical probabilities that the result of such a crash would be the creation of an environment acceptable for life and that life would actually then develop?

And yet, Weisburg and others would argue that a man of science would be more rational than Romney for his beliefs. His argument is weak and "irrational." Which is why it comes across as sounding bigoted.

Well, I guess I'm getting soft becasue I agree completely with Hoya here (with the possible exception of his description of the big bang theory, but that is really beside the point he is making). If they are to be believed, almost all prior presidents from both sides of the aisle held these types of beliefs. UNderstandiong a man's religion so as to inform your opinion of that man and to allow you to better predict his likley course of action in any gioven set of circumstances is fine, but to discount him simply becasue of the presence of religious belief is ridiculous and is obvious bigotry. The fact that weisberg may be bigoted against all practiced religions should give solace to no one, not even SU.


btw, man was used as a collective noun and was meant to include all genders.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you misread his article, SU. He notes that he would be fine with a Catholic or Jew because their beliefs are based on ideas formed "eons ago," in contrast to the recent, transparent "fraud" of Smith. How this makes any logical sense is beyond me. If he has a problem with Romney as president because Romney holds "irrational" views on religion, how could he possibly not have an issue with every other president the nation has ever had (almost all of whom were protestants)? Is someone more rational for believing that an event occurred 2000 years ago as opposed to believing an event occurred 200 years ago when neither event is "provable?" If so, please explain how. He also overlooks the fact that the protestant reformation didn't take place until the 1500s. Therefore, those buying into the "irrational" doctrines of protestantism aren't holding beliefs that are "eons" old, they are holding beliefs that were initially formed 500 years ago. So, is it rational to believe something with a 500 year old foundation but not rational to believe something with a 200 year old foundation? Such a conclusion is absurd. It suggests Romney would be a great candidate in just 300 more years.

Religion, by its nature, requires faith. Such a requirement, scientifically, always appears "irrational."

Of course, science doesn't do much better in comparison. Science requires faith as well, even if most scientists wouldn't acknowledge it. In order to reach any scientific conclusion, we have to begin with certain assumptions and go from there. That those assumptions haven't been "disproven" does not make them "real" or "true."

The creation of the universe is a perfect illustration of this point. Most scientists would suggest it is "rational" to believe in the Big Bang theory. But is it rational? To accept that theory, we have to accept that there were two enormous rocks that collided with each other, given an infinite amount of free space in which to roam. What are the mathematical odds of such a collision? Where did those rocks come from? Have they always existed? If not, how were they created? Science teaches us that things can neither be created nor destroyed. Were they created from other matter? If so, where did that matter come from? What are the mathematical probabilities that the result of such a crash would be the creation of an environment acceptable for life and that life would actually then develop?

And yet, Weisburg and others would argue that a man of science would be more rational than Romney for his beliefs. His argument is weak and "irrational." Which is why it comes across as sounding bigoted.

Very well said. I would ad that Weisburg's positon doesn't merely come across as bigoted, it is bigotry in it's most basic form.

[Cali Coug]

When TooBlue and Creekster agree with me, I need to pause and evaluate the strong possibility that I might be wrong!



Kidding of course.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

When TooBlue and Creekster agree with me, I need to pause and evaluate the strong possibility that I might be wrong!



Kidding of course.

I agree with your analysis, though I believe you didn't correctly describe the big bang theory, and the string theory is also popular.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree with your analysis, though I believe you didn't correctly describe the big bang theory, and the string theory is also popular.

Dangit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a physicist.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Dangit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a physicist.

Well I'm not a physicist, and sometimes I feign I know nothing about the law.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Dangit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a physicist.

Having a bunch of lawyers argue about physics would probably be pretty amusing.

[non sequitur]

How many here would vote for a Scientologist for president? How about a Branch Davidian? How about someone who claimed to be an adherent of the Heavens Gate sect? If we acknowledge that we wouldn't vote for such a person, is it because of religious bigotry or because we question the rationality of a person who would believe in something that we recognize as an obvious fraud?

I don't believe David Koresh was a man of God, and I don't believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea, but I would be much more willing to vote for someone who believed Moses parted the Red Sea than I would for someone who believed that David Koresh was a modern day prophet. For whatever reason, it is less rational to cling to a new lie than it is to an old, established lie. I believe that is the point Weisberg is making when he speaks of "recent, transparent frauds".

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How many here would vote for a Scientologist for president? How about a Branch Davidian? How about someone who claimed to be an adherent of the Heavens Gate sect? If we acknowledge that we wouldn't vote for such a person, is it because of religious bigotry or because we question the rationality of a person who would believe in something that we recognize as an obvious fraud?

I don't believe David Koresh was a man of God, and I don't believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea, but I would be much more willing to vote for someone who believed Moses parted the Red Sea than I would for someone who believed that David Koresh was a modern day prophet. For whatever reason, it is less rational to cling to a new lie than it is to an old, established lie. I believe that is the point Weisberg is making when he speaks of "recent, transparent frauds".

I wouldn't vote for a religious leader, but I would vote for those people if they held my economic, judicial and some social policies, if that person were skilled in the arena of politics being a politician first, who simply held those religious beliefs.

[MikeWaters]

SU, what do you know about Mormonism, that would allow you to vote for Romney, that Jacob Weasleberg doesn't know?