A "Convenient Truth." (Part 1)

I saw a post written by a confused Mormon member about something called "religious truth" and atheists doing the offense? Uh…whatever.  

The OP didn't really elaborate what he meant by religious truth, other than some mix-up words about science, secular, and atheism (To be honest, reading the post is like eating a granola bar). So I guess I have to start by exploring religious truth.

In a nutshell, religious truths are expressions of human experience for the purpose of achieving the greatest well-being possible (i.e., salvation, absolute freedom, or total harmony). These "truths" are connected to human emotional systems, which are connected to life-threatening circumstances and social needs. Looking at it, we can say that "religious truth" is all about providing reassurance or comfort.  

Now, here's the problem. If religious truth are expressions of human experience, then it's relative since human experiences varies from different interpretations. It is also subjective. It is influenced by personal opinions and feelings.

Going back to the Confused Mormon's post. He seems to be suggesting that you cannot use "scientific proof" or any secular facts to disproved a religious claim. (an atheist insisting a SCIENTIFIC PROOF from a RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL TRUTH is most likely inapplicable and unjustifiable. Scientific truth is equal with scientific proof, Religious for religious.) In other words, the Confused Mormon is trying to create two versions of "truths" - science (or secular) and religious/spiritual truths in which he then declare to be separated. 

WHAT?

So, what is "true" by the way?

Truth is typically defined as a fact that has been verified. So, simply put it truth is a proposition that can be labeled as true or false in accordance to the degree of its validation.

Let see...

Mormons claim that there were two groups of people ( the Jaredites and the descendants of the tribe of Manasseh) from Palestine that landed in the New Lands (America)in 2,500BCE and 600 BCE. The descendants of the tribe of Manasseh was split into 2: the Nephites and Lamanites. After becoming enemies, in A.D. 385 the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites, who were “cursed” with dark skin and became the ancestors of American Indians.

Now, is this true? Well, according to the confused Mormon, it is a "religious truth" so you cannot question it using archaeological facts. Will I just accept it "by faith" that the Native Americans only appeared in 385 CE? Archaeological facts says that the ancestors of the Native Americans settles in the Americas during the last ice age; from approximately 30,000–12,000 years ago.

How about these boats called “barges?” Ether 2:6-25 and Ether 6:6 relate the story of how the Jaredites came to America in eight boats called “barges” in which YHWH forgot to provide any ventilation. How true is that? How can I verify that a group of Israelite traveled from sea on "barges" to the Americas in 2,500BCE? Should I also believe (spiritually) that the Hebrew god is that dumb to forgot the benefit of ventilation? 

It really doesn't matter if these claims are false in the secular world, as long as "religious truth" verify them as true. But then, by using only "religious truth" will I know if the Mormon claims are factual? 

In the next installment, I will be more about the absurdities of the Confused Mormon's claims regarding a two "spheres of truth."

Until next time.