What's more likely to make you apostate, science or theology?
 

Apparently theology.

Finke, Roger, and Rodney Stark. The Churching of America: Winners and Losers in our Religion Economy. New Brunswick, N.J.: Routledge, p. 86.


It's encouraging to know that more concrete, precise disciplines won't be hazardous to one's faith like the more abstract ones, speculative ones.

That question should be "science or APOSTATE theology?"

I don't believe study creates apostasy for the most part, but the uncaring, noninclusive mullah atmosphere within Church creates it. A big tent environment would eliminate a lot of apostasy.

no theology was ever intended to make one apostate

I didn't say that was the intent, I'm just saying that a theology even more flawed than Mormonism is going to result in a lot of disillusionment when they can't reconcile flawed theology with scriptures, reason and so forth.

Eliminating commandments would create a lot fewer sinners too.

Theology evolves or evolved to explain in philosophical and metaphysical terms how religious ideas relate to nonreligious matter. Because it is more dry that the emotive aspects of charismatic religious movements, it can tend to bore or cause one to drift. In one sense, theology is the scientific language acting as the exoskeleton of religious movements. Mormonism is the anti-theological religion, because it was created through the efforts of nonscholars, ranchers, farmers, workers, not preeminent scholars of the day a la historical Christianity.

it causes one to drift because in the end, half of it is BS anyway.

It's just people's way of trying to explain something that they don't understand, so I wouldn't call it BS, just perhaps scientifically unverifiable, as is almost all aspects of religious activity or belief.

Well, from an LDS viewpoint, their theology is fatally flawed due to a lack of continuing revelation, purposeful meddling and so forth.

chances are when you move from scientifically unverifiable premises to a conclusion to another conclusion, you'll end up in BS land.

Ultimately, you'll wonder why your BS is incoherent and flawed, and lose your faith.

I disagree that atmosphere creates apostasy. It seems that most apostates choose that path and use the lack of a big tent environment as an excuse to deflect blame.

Some people will leave for many reasons, they don't want to do what's asked, they are struggling and encounter an unsympathetic leader or what not. If we always had wise and caring leaders those who struggle would receive better care. If a person felt loved no matter what fewer would apostasize.

To that comment I would add if leadership could be trusted with openly and honestly discussing their history, there would be less apostasy.:rolleyes:

This may become fodder for a new Jeff Foxworthy bit: You know you must be an apostate when...

Amen.

...you stop hiding your Sunstone when the home teachers come over.

Theology.

Easy for me, ours, if we have any, don't visit. No visits, thank goodness in over two years.

From my experience theology/religious studies departments have a much higher % of atheists than science depts.

But that correlation may not support the causation you seem to be suggesting.

OK, what variables do you propose may affect that %?

First, observations are anecdotal, so it's not scientific, but let's imagine the personal selection has something to do with it.

Those naturally inclined to question or those who have lost faith gravitate to the fringe of theology perhaps, so the study thereof does not cause apostasy but somebody who has already lost faith gravitates there.

Endogeneity, everyone knows that. But what reason do we have to believe that those who lose their faith are more likely to gravitate toward theology than science? Especially since aspiring ministers study theology.

I agree. I think scientists are more likely to be agnostics, but maybe less likely to be atheists than someone in a religious studies department.

You guys think too much sometimes. You seemed to me to be suggesting that the study of theology makes you apostate because it is all BS and so leads you away from the truth, as opposed to science, which is not BS. An laterntate explanation for the causality that immediately suggested itslef to me is that the study of tehology makes you apostate becasue it is BS and you realize this when you study it, while scientists aren't as likely to be apostate becasue they don't study it. I don't subscribe to this, but it just seems equally defesible as a theory.

Can we please have a gentleman's agreement not to discuss future interests on this board? Some topics should just be out of bounds.

defeasible, defensible, is anyone really reading htis stuff?

Those two theories aren't mutually exclusive. People realize theology is BS because they can't make a rational defense for God, so they think God must not exist. But I think the reason they can't do it is because they're methods are a bunch of warm-fuzzy BS. With science, it's a little more clear cut, so they won't go apostate as much.

They are not necessarily exclusive but are on a specturm and at either end they would be. The point is that your assumption that there is a religious tryuth from which theologians are led away due to study is possibly incorrect; it could be that there simply is no religious truth and the study through critical reasoning of theology makes on realize this. There is certainly room for overlap. ANd, as I said bfore, I do not subscribe to the second theory.

So the theory you describe but don't subscribe to says through critical reasoning they discover there is no religious truth. OK, but that doesn't explain why scientists don't go apostate in as large numbers. I'm just postulating that critical reasoning unaided by the scientific method will take you to BS land.

The 2 reasons I've seen people leave the church:

1. Because they've done their own studying and come to the conclusion that the stories they've been told and learned about aren't true anymore. And yes for you "intellectuals" I know it's deeper than that.

2. Because they get offended by someone or something and quit going.

Sorry for the generic and plain examples, but ultimately that's what it boils down to.

I was tempted to say.....Sin,,,,just to get the intellectual mullah's in a tizzy. ;)

In my experience, more often than not, serious sin is the real culprit in #2.

You won't get any argument from me.

I ujnderstand. I was just makign an observation. Nothing of particualr distionction was meant.

Is this the worst, most inartful subject heading for a thread ever? Chino truly doesn't get it, I see.

Whatever category describes mullah types in the church. If those types really become dominant in the church, then that will be a witness to me "by their fruits" indicates things have gone awry.

No, there are plenty of inartful threads; I have a personal witness of this, as you and I have authored many of them.