Topic: Buskirk Review
Scientists, notably Sagan and Richard Feynman do have some strong rhetoric against authority. Though I think they probably aren't quite so naive about it as they might come across at times. Certainly, I can agree that science would come to a dead stand still if no one took any science on shall we say, "faith." There simply aren't enough hours in the day to confirm every experiment relevant to one's field prior to accepting them as true. And even if there were enough hours, it would be a terrible waste of time and resources. The important, and relatively straightforward point about authority is that in science, a patent clerk can revolutionize physics. And that in physics, revolutions are a good. In Mormonism, there is no concept of rejecting the revelations of a prophet. And if there is ever, the rejection of a revelation, that rejection must come from another prophet. At any point in Mormon history, the current prophet has always been irrefutably right. For those who think I exaggerate, please conjure up in your mind one doctrine, or matter of revelation, not opinion, that has ever been wrong. The problem isn't with authority, but supposed absolute and incontestable authority, the very kind the Mormon prophet claims.
Continuing on with how we might know religious truth, Dr. Buskirk cites Boyd K. Packer's salt as the sensus divinitatis in his well-known talk, The candle of the Lord.(304) To that I respond with Alice in Chain's, Junkhead,
You Can't Understand A User's Mind
But Try, With Your Books And Degrees
If You Let Yourself Go And Open Your Mind
I'll Bet You'd Be Doing Like Me
And It Ain't So Bad!
A Heroin addict might fail to articulate what his drug is like. But that doesn't mean we should take that leap of faith and find out for ourselves. If the religious experience is truly incommensurable, it's pointless to sell it as enlightenment. Equally likely, is that it's a trip into the "deranged and frenzied" as Korihor taught. You take a 50-50 chance. Maybe I'll try the red pill, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll try heroin, or perhaps Mormonism. If Anne Sulliven could figure out how to communicate with Helen Keller, then Packer is left without excuse.
Finally, Dr. Buskirk quotes Henry Eyring,
“I have often met this question: ‘Dr. Eyring, as a scientist, how can you accept revealed religion?’ The answer is simple. The Gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion. Try it. Does it work?”
How would the same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion when religion, according to Dr. Buskirk, occupies the domain of a completely different category? How do you "try" moral obligations and come to the decision that they "work?"
