The Road to Hell is Paved with Bad Intentions

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

If I sense that a concept, idea or words are vague or incomplete - then I ask specific pointed and detailed questions to get clarification and avoid the problem you think we are having.   But you refuse to answer the questions or make any attempt to clear up definitions or concepts.   The internet has a very broad range and it is easy for misunderstanding to arise.  I had hoped that you would be more anxious and happy to clarify.  As pertaining to my post in response to yours - I have made every attempt to be specific and point out exactly - important elements --like the Spirit of Christ and knowledge of good and evil being necessary for maintaining and exercising agency.  I will add to my understanding of agency in that if a person is beguiled (as was Eve by Satan) then the result may be a choice that is not an exercise of agency.

Perhaps we could have some very interesting discussions - but not if you continue to refuse to answer questions and attempt to divert specifics as you have done with this statement above that I have quoted.  It is vague and lacking an specifics so I have no idea at all what you are attempting to reference. 

 

The Traveler

I define "agency" as "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power". God gave unto Adam and Eve this ability or gift before Satan tempted them-

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; (Moses 7:32)

 

. Thus, Adam and Eve were both aware and accountable before God as pertaining to choosing right or wrong. Agency is surrenderd/destroyed when man gives into temptations. This is Satans goal. Thus, Satan seeks to destroy our agency by getting us to sin so that he has power over us.

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

The US hasn't had a history of a State run religion that suppressed scientific development, so you couldn't test the theory here.

Quite the contrary. It provides a way to control for one of your hypothesized variables. The reason you may wish to dismiss it is because the control tends to negate your hypothesis. Sorry, but that is the way science and rational thinking works.

Quote

Let's here why you believe that when it comes to nations,  with some exceptions, the murder rate is generally higher with the highest percentage of Christians.  No one can argue this part, but causation can be debated.I

From a scientific perspective you are asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering why two loose statistics correlate at the nation level, but don't at the state level, and may even reverse at the local level, rather attempt to determine the causal factors at all levels.

Even more important, there is little value in wildly conjecturing (since that is the best I could do at this point since I haven't conducted any studies) about the reason for the correlation at the nation level. For example, I could say that it is pure coincidence, but without digging deeper into the data and testing it in various ways, it has no more persuasive power than your baseless claim that there is a causal relationship.

Science and reason rightly require more than simply making an assertion based on a single data point of loose statistical correlation.

Quote

'm speaking of nations, not states.

I consider my observation to be my own hypothesis rather than something definitive.  I don't mind hearing other hypothesis on causation (which is why I asked the question and waited before posting 

While there is a correlation in the United States between population density and murder rates, that's really not evident when it comes to nations.  In fact most (not all) of the nations with very low murder rates have very high population densities, at least compared to the US.

Again, you are entitled to your relatively baseless and somewhat negated opinion.  Just don't expect it to be persuasive with critical thinkers because they will rightly demand that you provide sufficient reason and evidence to back up your claim--meaning, you will be required to not only substantiate the hypothesized causal connections (direct or mediated), but also account for the variance in outcomes at different levels. Blithely dismissing critical questions and evidence and shifting the burden of proof or explanation, like what you are doing in this post, is counterproductive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 31, 2018 by wenglund

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Just don't expect it to be persuasive with critical thinkers because they will rightly demand that you provide sufficient reason and evidence to back up your claim--meaning, you will be required to not only substantiate the hypothesized causal connections (direct or mediated), but also account for the variance in outcomes at different levels

Here is the definition of a hypothesis: 

A proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

I said only that it was my hypothesis, which by definition only means it hasn't been proven or studied yet.  A hypothesis is merely a proposed cause to study.  As far as being baseless, all hypotheses are baseless or nearly so, which is why they are called a hypotheses rather than a theory.  A theory requires study.  

I also invited more hypothesis from others.  

Quote

 

Quite the contrary. It provides a way to control for one of your hypothesized variables/ The reason you may wish to dismiss it is because the control tends to negate your hypothesis. Sorry, but that is the way science and rational thinking works.

 

I didn't think it would be the best control since it hasn't really suppressed scientific thinking or methods.   I don't dismiss it completely.

Quote

 Instead of wondering why two loose statistics correlate at the nation level, but don't at the state level, and may even reverse at the local level, rather attempt to determine the causal factors at all levels.

If the hypothesis is that lack of Separation of Church and state has stifled development in certain countries, which leads to higher murder rates, how would you correlate that study in the context of a state or local level within this nation?   

PS, I am an engineer and have published many scientific papers. 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I define "agency" as "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power". God gave unto Adam and Eve this ability or gift before Satan tempted them-

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; (Moses 7:32)

 

. Thus, Adam and Eve were both aware and accountable before God as pertaining to choosing right or wrong. Agency is surrenderd/destroyed when man gives into temptations. This is Satans goal. Thus, Satan seeks to destroy our agency by getting us to sin so that he has power over us.

Perhaps if I ask the question a little differently - If someone does not know good from evil are they accountable?  For example, are little children accountable? - do they have agency?  If  so why? or if they do not; why?  Here is another question - who is responsible if children are not taught and prepared properly so that they fall into temptation - who is held accountable - the parents or the child?  Why are little children exempted from repentance if they slap their sibling?  Does it make any difference if their parents told them a year ago (or less) not to slap their sibling?

 

The Traveler

Edited July 31, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps if I ask the question a little differently - If someone does not know good from evil are they accountable?  For example, are little children accountable? - do they have agency?  If  so why? or if they do not; why?  Here is another question - who is responsible if children are not taught and prepared properly so that they fall into temptation - who is held accountable - the parents or the child?  Why are little children exempted from repentance if they slap their sibling?  Does it make any difference if their parents told them a year ago (or less) not to slap their sibling?

 

The Traveler

In the case of Adam and Eve they knew full well that what they did was wrong. They weren't innocent little children. They broke the law. If they have the law it's because they knew right front wrong.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Here is the definition of a hypothesis: 

A proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

I said only that it was my hypothesis, which by definition only means it hasn't been proven or studied yet.  A hypothesis is merely a proposed cause to study.  As far as being baseless, all hypotheses are baseless or nearly so, which is why they are called a hypotheses rather than a theory.  A theory requires study.  

I also invited more hypothesis from others.  

I didn't think it would be the best control since it hasn't really suppressed scientific thinking or methods.   I don't dismiss it completely.

If the hypothesis is that lack of Separation of Church and state has stifled development in certain countries, which leads to higher murder rates, how would you correlate that study in the context of a state or local level within this nation?   

PS, I am an engineer and have published many scientific papers. 

Even though your Sunday Night post stated your assertion as though it were a given (even calling it "tragic"), I will now accept that you consider it "only as my hypothesis," and will give it no more credence than it is due--which isn't much since I typically reserve judgement until sufficient evidence is produced.  I will be pleased to see what you produce.

As for experimental controls by looking within nations and at local regions,  if I understand your original hypothesis, you asserted that there was a causal relationship between the rate of Christianity and murder rates, and you used the rudimentary statistical comparison between the two on a national level as initial evidence.

That is fair enough to get the hypothesis rolling. However, to test the hypothesis, then, If there were a causal link between the rate of Christianity and murder at a notional level, one may reasonably assume that the same would hold true on a state and local level as well. If the statistical comparisons significantly correlated at the state and local level, then one would have further evidence of causality. Whereas, if the correlations broke down and even reversed at the state and local levels, then reason would suggest an isolated correlation and not causation at the national level. Does this make sense?

Later, you introduced a mediating variable (separation of church and state) for the hypothesized causal link between rate of Christianity and murder rates, and provided some vague rationale for your expanded hypothesis, without actually providing direct connections between the three variables.

Nevertheless, if the variable of church and state mediated a causal relationship between Christianity and murder at the national level,  one may reasonably assume that the causal correlation within the nation would not differ because the mediating variable remains the same. Whereas, if the correlations within the nations are not consistent, then that would raise doubts about church and state as a mediating variable, as well as call into question the causal link between Christianity and murder rates. Do you see what I mean?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In the case of Adam and Eve they knew full well that what they did was wrong. They weren't innocent little children. They broke the law. If they have the law it's because they knew right front wrong.

Thank you for answering so far.  I am trying to nail down what is the knowledge of good and evil as you are applying it.  So my question is - why do you think they "knew full well that what they did was wrong"?  I can understand that after they partook of the fruit we could argue this point but not before when Satan was tempting them.  Are you implying evil and doing wrong are complete disconnected?  I personally find this a little confusing - I am thinking that if you do not know what is evil - you do not know what is wrong.  I also might add that a 3 year old knows full well that they are forbidden from slapping their sibling (I have some experience with raising my own children) - so why are they not held accountable before G-d?

 

The Traveler

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Even though your Sunday Night post stated your assertion as though it were a given (even calling it "tragic"), I will now accept that you consider it "only as my hypothesis,"

 I think you are confusing terms.

I didn't state my hypothesis until later.  I mentioned nothing about causation or hypothesis anywhere in that post.

It is a fact not a hypothesis that a correlation and connection exist between the murder rates and percentage of Christians among countries.   I don't think that can be debated.  Causation can be debated.

My hypothesis about causation wasn't mentioned until later.  

As an example, if I say that there is a correlation and connection between the temperatures in Utah as you change elevation and if I already have the data showing this (for example, based on weather data, the ski resorts of Alta and Brighton tend to be colder on average than Salt Lake City and Provo), that would be a fact, just as in general the higher crime countries tend to have a higher percentage of Christians.

That wouldn't be a hypothesis.

A hypotheses would be the (untested at hypothesis state) proposal as to why that is. If you wanted the hypothesis to become a theory, you would start gathering data and observations before making a conclusion.   

Quote

if I understand your original hypothesis, you asserted that there was a causal relationship between the rate of Christianity and murder rates, and you used the rudimentary statistical comparison between the two on a national level as initial evidence.

The isn't my hypothesis; that is statistic or fact.  There is a relationship between the two.    That is factual and not a hypothesis.   The hypothesis only has to do with causation.   

Quote

Later, you introduced a mediating variable (separation of church and state) for the hypothesized causal link between rate of Christianity and murder rates, and provided some vague rationale for your expanded hypothesis

Correct; that was my hypothesis (sort of).  There is a difference though.   The link isn't between Christianity and murder rates, it is between Christian nations and murder rates.   I don't know if you see the difference, but hopefully it will be explained below.  

Quote

If there were a causal link between the rate of Christianity and murder at a notional level, one may reasonably assume that the same would hold true on a state and local level as well. If the statistical comparisons significantly correlated at the state and local level, then one would have further evidence of causality.

That would only work if the goal was to prove that Christians are violent in general.   I don't believe that and that's not why I said.  In the United States I don't think there is much if any correlation between violence among states that have a higher percentage of Christians and those who don't.   That has nothing to do with my hypotheses.   You seem to think that I was implying the Christianity is evil and that was my hypothosis. 

Here is my proposed hypothesis concerning the reason that the murder rate is in general higher in countries with a higher percentage of Christians.  I'll bold the hypothesis to make it clear as to which part of this post is the hypothesis.  

Part 1

Dating back to the Middle Ages, but much more importantly, continuing through more modern times, in many countries had Churches that repressed scientific discoveries, development, and even education.   This was true of many Catholic and protestant churches.  Those weren't the only churches that repressed scientific discoveries and development, but Christianity just happens to be the biggest one, because of the large number of followers.  

I don't know if you have traveled a lot or not, but a lot of those nations have a long history of suppressing science/education through state sponsored Churches.    It wasn't unique to Christianity either.   Even today, some Islamic nations still do this (such as Afghanistan).   Even today, such nations as Afghanistan (which isn't Christian) aren't going to develop unless they loosen their stranglehold on Church and State.   

The countries that were first to adopt a Separation of Church and State (such as the United States) were the fasted to develop.   For the most part, the United States, at least since it's creation has been quick to adopt most scientific knowledge.        This isn't true of nations that had and have strict laws related to a state sponsored religion or with religious laws.   Some nations have had beliefs saying that religion negates the need for science and some have even called some aspects to be works of the devil.

It really wasn't Christians themselves in general that were hindering science, but the government and some churches of those nations doing the suppression in the name of religion.

As time past and past, nations who have been slow to accept scientific discoveries and were more controlling when it came to religion slowly fell behind other nations who were able to accept both science and religion, as well as adopted a separation of Church and State.  

Those countries fell further and further behind during the industrial revolution.   It takes a long time to catch up and some of those nations have become developed.

Although there are exceptions, for the most part, the highest murder rates are from developing countries.    My proposal is that several of those developing countries were slow to accept science because  of state sponsored religion.  The higher murder rates do correlate, but this wasn't intentional.  

To sum it up here is a briefer summary of the hypothesis:

Religion: Can be very good.   Many discoveries have been from religious people.   Also most religions promote things like charity.

Flip side:  Religion can be bad if it is used by some governments and churches to oppress.  That is the reason why the US has a separation of Church and State and why the separation of Church and State was divinely inspired to those who believe that it was.

Most Christian Nations (a few in Africa still are) are no longer using religion to suppress people, at least not on a large scale.   Those countries who have a long history of doing so are still feeling the effects.

Part 2

There is another proposed reason for the correlation and this one is an example of the chicken before the egg situation.   A second reason why several nations will a low percentage of Christians (or any other religion for that matter) isn't because they left religion, but the other way around.   It seems that several nations, after becoming rich, prosperous, and with a well functioning society with low murder rates have tended to lose interest some of the interest in religion.  So in this case the crime rates aren't low because the people aren't religious, but the religious rates are lower because those people are richer and more secure and thus have abandoned religion somewhat.

So, there you have it.   What is in bold is my hypothesis concerning the correlation between those countries and the murder rates.  

As mentioned, the above in bold is only my hypothesis.  It hasn't been proven.  I welcome more hypotheses.  

What isn't a hypothesis and what can't be debated though is that most of the countries with the highest crime rates happen to be the ones with the highest crime rates.

If you have different hypotheses for why this is, let's here them. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for answering so far.  I am trying to nail down what is the knowledge of good and evil as you are applying it.  So my question is - why do you think they "knew full well that what they did was wrong"?  I can understand that after they partook of the fruit we could argue this point but not before when Satan was tempting them.  Are you implying evil and doing wrong are complete disconnected?  I personally find this a little confusing - I am thinking that if you do not know what is evil - you do not know what is wrong.  I also might add that a 3 year old knows full well that they are forbidden from slapping their sibling (I have some experience with raising my own children) - so why are they not held accountable before G-d?

 

The Traveler

Okay, so- let's say I was told not to do drugs ever since I was a little kid and then one day When I was a teenager I did it. Up until I tried it I had no idea what the feeling was like I just knew it was wrong to do it. This is similar to Adam and Eve. They knew what right and wrong was. They may not have known the effectuntil they partook but nevertheless they still knowingly exercised their agency and chose to be disobedient.

[wenglund]

19 hours ago, Scott said:

 I think you are confusing terms....
 

I appreciate the clarification, and I apologize for the confusion. We have evidently been talking past each other.

Would you be so kind as to define more clearly what you mean by "separation of church and state?" Are you talking about nations with secular governments as opposed to theocracies? I ask because in the U.S. it  essentially means there is no established state religion. However, some of the countries (particularly in Europe and Scandinavia) , which have lower rates of Christianity and murder, currently have state religions (see HERE), and a dominate religion, while some of the nations (particularly in South America) with higher rates of Christianity and murder have long disestablished state religions. (see HERE)  And, some of the non-Christian countries with low murder rates, also currently have state religions and a dominate religion. (ibid.)

just to make sure, correct me if I am wrong in how I have distilled the causal chain of part 1 of your hypothesis: 1) Christina nations, particularly those with a dominate religion, are slow to separate church and state. 2) non-separated Christian nations suppress science. 3) the suppression of science leads to the suppression of development of nations. 4) suppressed development of nations leads to higher murder rates. Is that correct?

As for part 2: 1) separation of Christian church and state enhances development of nations. 2) enhanced national development leads to wealth. 3) wealth leads to a decline in Christianity. 4) A decline in Christianity leads to higher rates of murder. Is that correct?  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, so- let's say I was told not to do drugs ever since I was a little kid and then one day When I was a teenager I did it. Up until I tried it I had no idea what the feeling was like I just knew it was wrong to do it. This is similar to Adam and Eve. They knew what right and wrong was. They may not have known the effectuntil they partook but nevertheless they still knowingly exercised their agency and chose to be disobedient.

My friend – it is not so much that I disagree as it is that I thoroughly believe you are glossing over and skipping a lot of critical and necessary elements of understanding – and for the life of me; I do not understand why.  For example – when you say “that Adan and Eve knew what right and wrong was” – I believe you are mistaken and assuming things that are not in scripture or any revelation I am aware of.  Adam and Eve, when in Eden, did not have knowledge of good and evil.  That they had “forgotten all” and become as a little child.  I am not sure how that could be more clear – I believe we are specifically told that they were like little children (become as a little child) not knowing good from evil.  This is why I specifically used the analogy of a child.  As a side note – you have injected teenagers.  This could be interesting but in ancient Hebrew society a person was no longer considered a child when they reached the age of 12 – the same age Jesus joined in discussions in the temple.

I believe that Adam and Eve did exercise their agency and choose to initiate the fall but I believe this choice was made and committed to be made somewhat before Eden.  That when they made their choice to be Adam and Eve in Eden - they knew full well and understood with knowledge (as did G-d) the consequences of that choice.  That the fall in Eden was planned and foreseen.  That the role of Satan was not to alter the purpose of Eden but something of his own design that is not given in much detail in scripture except with vague references to eventually destroy the agency of man –- which by-the-way, is not done by man gaining knowledge of good and evil which is necessary for agency and exercising agency.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

My friend – it is not so much that I disagree as it is that I thoroughly believe you are glossing over and skipping a lot of critical and necessary elements of understanding – and for the life of me; I do not understand why.  For example – when you say “that Adan and Eve knew what right and wrong was” – I believe you are mistaken and assuming things that are not in scripture or any revelation I am aware of.  Adam and Eve, when in Eden, did not have knowledge of good and evil.  That they had “forgotten all” and become as a little child.  I am not sure how that could be more clear – I believe we are specifically told that they were like little children (become as a little child) not knowing good from evil.  This is why I specifically used the analogy of a child.  As a side note – you have injected teenagers.  This could be interesting but in ancient Hebrew society a person was no longer considered a child when they reached the age of 12 – the same age Jesus joined in discussions in the temple.

I believe that Adam and Eve did exercise their agency and choose to initiate the fall but I believe this choice was made and committed to be made somewhat before Eden.  That when they made their choice to be Adam and Eve in Eden - they knew full well and understood with knowledge (as did G-d) the consequences of that choice.  That the fall in Eden was planned and foreseen.  That the role of Satan was not to alter the purpose of Eden but something of his own design that is not given in much detail in scripture except with vague references to eventually destroy the agency of man –- which by-the-way, is not done by man gaining knowledge of good and evil which is necessary for agency and exercising agency.

 

The Traveler

Adam and Eve broke the commandments. They chose to sin. They knew enough to know what they were doing was wrong.

[Traveler]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Adam and Eve broke the commandments. They chose to sin. They knew enough to know what they were doing was wrong.

Do you have a reference - or is this just your opinion?

 

The Traveler

[Guest Scott]

 

 

Hi Wade, I don't have that much time today, but here are some brief explanations.

Quote

Would you be so kind as to define more clearly what you mean by "separation of church and state?"

Sure, but let's expand on that.   

I was referring to any time that the government or Church sponsored government has used power or influence to suppress scientific knowledge or development.  With few exceptions since the birth of our nation the US really hasn't had that problem.  People may mention things like the Scopes Trial, but that was really minor in the grand scheme of things and even someone considered it repression, it really doesn't affect development much.

This seems a foreign concept to many of us living in the US, but many countries did suppress things like science and education in the name of religion.

Even countries that didn't have state sponsored religions still did this.

You are correct that places like Norway have state sponsored religion, which is fine as long as they don't use it to suppress knowledge.   Norway really doesn't do this.   In the past they may have, but not for a long time.

Some countries that don't have state run religion still use religion to suppress.  Uganda is a good example of a country that doesn't have state run religion, but the government even right now is using religion to suppress.  For example, in much of Uganda girls are discouraged from getting educations based on supposed (Christian) religious beliefs.     Since women are roughly half the population, that's a lot of suppression that is hindering development in my opinion (of course religion isn't the only reason girls [and others] aren't getting an education, but it is certainly one important reason).

To clarify, I don't think that Christian beliefs are supposed to be against women getting educations, but that's how some people use it to justify their actions.   

Some areas of the world, such as Latin America have a pretty long history of governments using religion to suppress education and knowledge, but they are vastly improving.   Such countries take a long time to catch up, but it is happening.

Anyway, it seems a foreign concept to us in the United States, but if you ask a scientist or engineer in many developing countries if they believe that governments and churches, in the name of religion have ever used to to suppress science or education, the majority of them would answer in the affirmative. 

Quote

1) Christina nations, particularly those with a dominate religion, are slow to separate church and state.

Yes, many of them.  There are enough of them to form a correlation (in my hypothesis), but there are still exceptions.   I'd expand it to other religions as well, but Christianity makes it easier to see because of the numbers.

I'd say the same thing about Islam in many respects, which is also but Islamic countries often skew the data because they have become prosperous from oil supplies rather than from education and scientific development. It is true though that some of the Islamic countries that don't have oil supplies still have low murder rates, but still, I am speaking generally.  

Quote

 

Quote

2) non-separated Christian nations suppress science.

Many of them yes (even if they don't have an official religion), especially in the past.

3) the suppression of science leads to the suppression of development of nations. 4) Suppressed development of nations leads to higher murder rates. Is that correct?

Quote

As for part 2: 1) separation of Christian church and state enhances development of nations.

Yes.  I'd expand that to several other religions too, but it is most evident in Christian nations only because of the number of them. 

As mentioned, it isn't Christianity itself that oppresses, but people, churches, and governments who use or who have used it as an excuse to suppress.

Quote

2) enhanced national development leads to wealth.

Yes.

Quote

3) wealth leads to a decline in Christianity.

Yes.   Our own Church recognizes this as well.

Also, you can see this in our missionary work.   If you look at the list of wealthiest nations in the world, even the ones with full freedom of religion our conversion rates are really low.  Wealthy nations do tend to slowly lose interest religion over time.  Once again, the Islamic nations with oil reserves are often an exception, but the state sponsored religions there have a lot of influence.

Quote

4) A decline in Christianity leads to higher rates of murder. Is that correct?  

Not this one.

Anyway, that it my hypothesis.  It isn't proof.

If anyone is interested, I have traveled extensively and the countries I have traveled to marked in red, though a lot of the smaller ones don't show up on the map:

Edited August 1, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Do you have a reference - or is this just your opinion?

 

The Traveler

God commanded them not to partake of the tree. He also commanded them to only worship God. Adam and Eve broke both these commandments.

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. (Mosiah 16:3)

18 And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man. (D&C 20:18-20)

40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden afruit and btransgressed the commandment, wherein he became csubject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be acast out from the Garden of bEden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became cspiritually ddead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last edeath, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye fcursed.

42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not adie as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth bangels to declare unto them crepentance and dredemption, through faith on the name of mine eOnly Begotten Son.

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his aprobation—that by his bnatural death he might be craised in dimmortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;

44 And they that believe not unto eternal adamnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual bfall, because they repent not; (D&C 29:40-44)

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

I was referring to any time that the government or Church sponsored government has used power or influence to suppress scientific knowledge or development.  With few exceptions since the birth of our nation the US really hasn't had that problem.  People may mention things like the Scopes Trial, but that was really minor in the grand scheme of things and even someone considered it repression, it really doesn't affect development much. 

I appreciate the additional clarification. 

When you get the time, and regarding the first to links in the causal chain of Part 1 of your hypothesis, could you give me a sense for how you intend to measure the use, of power and influence in the suppression of scientific knowledge, particularly through the cooperation of church and state?

I ask because while in some respects religion suppressed science (as with Copernicus and the earth revolving around the Sun), many of the leading scientist of the past were deeply religious, including Christian. Some may even argue that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, provided some of the most fertile ground in which to enable science to grow.  Some LDS scholars have connected various scientific and economic revolutions to the restoration and growth of the Gospel of Christ on earth. (see for example, HERE)

In other words, how do you balance the religious influence of science for good or in terms of suppression?

And, given that there exists, over time and even today, a range of suppression of science (from creationism in the U.S. to banning women from schools to excommunications and worse for holding certain scientific beliefs, etc.), could you explain how you determine where along the spectrum the  level of suppression marks the difference between separation and non-separation of church and state? Wouldn't this be necessary first to determining when, over time, a given nation experienced separation of church and state as you define it?

Are you also considering and comparing other plausible factors suppressing scientific knowledge--such as environmental conditions like rural vs large population centers, agrarian vs.  industrial societies, isolated vs. socially interconnected, resource poor vc. rich, etc.?

Regarding the third link in the causal chain of Part 1 of your hypothesis, once you determine the way to measure suppression of science and determine the threshold for separation of church and state as you define it, and demonstrate that it plays a predominate or deciding factor in the suppression or development of science, will you be comparing those measurements with the measurements of other plausible factors of suppressing of national development?

I ask because many leading economist, including Adam Smith,  the founder of economics, attribute the succession of the economic development of nations, or lack thereof, predominately to the nature of the economic and political systems governing those nations, and more particularly the degree to which the systems were voluntary as opposed to coerced. 

If the later is true, it doesn't entirely negate the causal chain of Part 1 of your hypothesis, but it would certainly be grounds for revision, particularly of links 1 and 2., if not also 3.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

God commanded them not to partake of the tree. He also commanded them to only worship God. Adam and Eve broke both these commandments.

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. (Mosiah 16:3)

18 And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man. (D&C 20:18-20)

40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden afruit and btransgressed the commandment, wherein he became csubject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be acast out from the Garden of bEden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became cspiritually ddead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last edeath, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye fcursed.

42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not adie as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth bangels to declare unto them crepentance and dredemption, through faith on the name of mine eOnly Begotten Son.

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his aprobation—that by his bnatural death he might be craised in dimmortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;

44 And they that believe not unto eternal adamnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual bfall, because they repent not; (D&C 29:40-44)

I do not doubt that Adam partook of the fruit.  I understand he broke commandments and transgressed the law.  But I would ask did you notice the particular word "beguile".  This is very key to our discussion and proves exactly what I have been saying - Adam and Eve were tricked, fooled if you will - that they did not know they were doing anything wrong as you have been claiming.  The presents of the word "beguile" means they did not know and their choice was in ignorance and lacked knowledge - that they did not know that  their choice was wrong.

Thanks for providing the proof needed to resolve this.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Scott]

Quote

I ask because while in some respects religion suppressed science (as with Copernicus and the earth revolving around the Sun), many of the leading scientist of the past were deeply religious, including Christian. 

I agree with you, but perhaps you missed the most important point.    Christianity isn't the problem.    The only problem is Churches and Governments who misuse it to suppress.

(Of note I said earlier that it didn't happen as much in the US, but now that I think about it, it did.   The slave owners and those who used abuse slaves used to try justify slavery with Christianity.   Does that mean that Christianity is bad?   No.  It does mean however, that people  were using Christianity to try and justify oppression of others). 

Quote

In other words, how do you balance the religious influence of science for good or in terms of suppression?

Religious influence in science can be and should be good.    Overall, in our Church at least (which is relatively new), religion is used in a overall positive manner towards science.  In our church, we are told to get an education and females are encouraged to do the same thing.  I would say that overall, since it's inception, our church has had a good influence on education and science.  

I can tell you that that hasn't always been the case for most of those high murder rate countries on the map though.  It's churches and governments who abuse those powers under religious justification who create the problems.

Hopefully this will explain it in terms easier to grasp:

Using my own hypotheses, (this won't happen in real life) let's say our Church was able to entirely take over the state of Utah, including the government, and in the name of religion started successfully suppressing scientific knowledge and discouraging people from getting an education.    According to my hypothesis,  the economic development of Utah would at the very least stagnate and wouldn't grow at the same rates as the surrounding states who didn't use (or should I say abuse?) religion to suppress  .  Also according to my hypothesis,  the murder rate would more than likely also go up.

Does this make sense?  Do you agree with the above?    If so, that's what was (and in some cases still is) happening in most of those countries with the highest murder rates.   It might not be the only reason, but it would be a big one.

What do you think would happen if the above scenario?  If that did happen, do you think that the economic development of Utah would be slower than it would in the other states where it didn't happen?   Do you think the murder rate would also go up as a result? 

Quote

Wouldn't this be necessary first to determining when, over time, a given nation experienced separation of church and state as you define it?

If I was writing a scientific publication to try and prove my hypotheses, yes I would have to do that.    I have already said that I can't prove the hypotheses at this time.  I'm pretty sure no one here does that to prove a post on the forum.   

Quote

I ask because many leading economist, including Adam Smith,  the founder of economics, attribute the succession of the economic development of nations, or lack thereof, predominately to the nature of the economic and political systems governing those nations, and more particularly the degree to which the systems were voluntary as opposed to coerced. 

True, but it was often Churches and governments using religious justification doing the latter.  

You still haven't stated your own hypothesis, if you have one.   Why do the nations with the highest percentage of Christians also have the highest murder rates.

Do you think it is just a coincidence?   The matching up of the two maps show a staggering correlation.  Although coincidence is possible, given how much correlation there is, it is  unlikely.   As said, I welcome other opinions or hypotheses.  Do you have one?  

Edited August 1, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not doubt that Adam partook of the fruit.  I understand he broke commandments and transgressed the law.  But I would ask did you notice the particular word "beguile".  This is very key to our discussion and proves exactly what I have been saying - Adam and Eve were tricked, fooled if you will - that they did not know they were doing anything wrong as you have been claiming.  The presents of the word "beguile" means they did not know and their choice was in ignorance and lacked knowledge - that they did not know that  their choice was wrong.

Thanks for providing the proof needed to resolve this.

 

The Traveler

To beguile is to deceive. Isnt that how Satan works today? Satan goes around deceiving mankind into sin. He beguiles folks like you me and you everday. Adam and Eve did know what they did was wrong just as you and I know we do wrong.

[wenglund]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

I agree with you, but perhaps you missed the most important point.    Christianity isn't the problem.    The only problem is Churches and Governments who misuse it to suppress.

I am not sure if you actually agree with me or not since I have been using the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" as referring to the set of Christian churches (or people belonging to Christian churches)--particularly since the overwhelming majority of Christians are affiliated with Christian churches and this discussion is focused on Christian churches. My usage of the term renders your second and third sentences as contradictory.

If your point is to distinguish between Christianity and Christian churches (to what end is yet a mystery to me), this will complicate an already highly complicated hypothesis and discussion, which I view as nearing the point of convolution. But, I will do my best to try to follow your seemingly meandering "reasoning", and this depending upon energy levels and interest and chances of productivity, each of which are fast waning in light of the proliferating communicative disconnects.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited August 2, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

To beguile is to deceive. Isnt that how Satan works today? Satan goes around deceiving mankind into sin. He beguiles folks like you me and you everday. Adam and Eve did know what they did was wrong just as you and I know we do wrong.

I thought that one of the primary, if not intended results of the fall was gaining the knowledge of good and evil ("became as the Gods...". Yet, you seem to here be suggesting otherwise. Is that correct?

Thanks, -Wade Enbglund-

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

I thought that one of the primary, if not intended results of the fall was gaining the knowledge of good and evil ("became as the Gods...". Yet, you seem to here be suggesting otherwise. Is that correct?

Thanks, -Wade Enbglund-

The fall was inevitable. The natural man will naturally choose to sin. Each one of us fall in the same manner as did Adam by giving in to temptation and sin. It's how we too learn the knowledge of good and evil.

[wenglund]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The fall was inevitable. The natural man will naturally choose to sin. Each one of us fall in the same manner as did Adam by giving in to temptation and sin. It's how we too learn the knowledge of good and evil.

Your response is more than a little vague. So let me ask you directly: "Do you believe that the knowledge of good and evil occurs pre or post fall for all of us, including Adam and Eve?"

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Your response is more than a little vague. So let me ask you directly: "Do you believe that the knowledge of good and evil occurs pre or post fall for all of us, including Adam and Eve?"

When we give in to temptation and sin, as did Adam and Eve, we fall spiritually and then know what evil is having the accompanying misery that befalls the sinner.

[wenglund]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

When we give in to temptation and sin, as did Adam and Eve, we fall spiritually and then know what evil is having the accompanying misery that befalls the sinner.

I suppose you have your reason for evasively answering  the questions that I ask. So, I won't press you further. Have a nice day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-