BCSpace Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I think the argument could be made that LDS doctrine is that we worship on the altars of science; God Himself being the chief scientist. Science itself is willing to accept new truth. Not all religions can say that, but we LDS can because we've incorporated all truth.Uhhhh, no we haven't:"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."A matter of semantics I suppose, but I think you have just proven that we have. By committing now to accept all truth, we have essentially incorporated all truth now.
BCSpace Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I think the argument could be made that LDS doctrine is that we worship on the altars of science; God Himself being the chief scientist. Science itself is willing to accept new truth. Not all religions can say that, but we LDS can because we've incorporated all truth.The problem is science is based on theory and not final fact. So where the LDS are based on final fact science lags behind. We have faith that final fact will match our doctrine and faith. So we are not afraid of science but embrace the progress towards truth. We should never assume that current science holds truth. This shake up in science should give us pause yet again not to trust the ideas of man. As man progresses towards truth he will stumble along the way. We should all be aware of this stumbling block and not get too wrapped in the moving target but keep focused on the end goal of truth of which current science offers little.I do not worship at the altar of science, I worship at the altar of truth. The LDS church does not worship at the altar of science. You really need to get your head straight. I think we may be more similar than you think. I would agree that everything is black and white, but I would not agree that the Gospel has no hypothesis (theory's are based on facts) or unknowns. For example, to a person living the law of Moses, there was no higher law. Yet we know now a higher law exists. Pure science, like pure religion, is a vehicle for discovering truth.
Franktalk Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 This is in my opinion one of the main moral lessons of Job. His friends thought they had it all figured out and were willing to slap down Job for doubting. But Job didn't doubt God. It was just that the circumstances and events of his life were incompatible with what he knew of God and he was desperately trying to reason it out. In the end God commended Job and condemned his friends.I think you have it wrong. Job knew well the Character of God. It was his friends that were in error. The whole argument with Job and his friends was based on their assumptions that to be punished on Earth meant you were somehow evil in God's eyes. God inspired this writing to set the stage for His Son to come and be punished for our sins. Can you not see the type in the book? I am sure that when Job learned of Christ he realized that his life and trials were used to deliver a message of Christ. I am sure he said "It was a small thing to do for my God, praise God."
The Nehor Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 A matter of semantics I suppose, but I think you have just proven that we have. By committing now to accept all truth, we have essentially incorporated all truth now.I would argue that we can't incorporate that which we do not have. Committing to accept all truth is like saying you will have an open mind but also meaning it. Nibley once said that doing that would put you in for a world of work because you'd have to analyze and study everything to find said truth. I'd like to make that commitment but I'm sure I fail in practice.The best sermon I know of given on this concept was by Brigham Young who said that we will claim all truth no matter where we find it. I think that is a more accurate description of what a faithful Latter-Day Saint does. 2
The Nehor Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I think you have it wrong. Job knew well the Character of God. It was his friends that were in error. The whole argument with Job and his friends was based on their assumptions that to be punished on Earth meant you were somehow evil in God's eyes. God inspired this writing to set the stage for His Son to come and be punished for our sins. Can you not see the type in the book? I am sure that when Job learned of Christ he realized that his life and trials were used to deliver a message of Christ. I am sure he said "It was a small thing to do for my God, praise God."I think you may have misunderstood me.I'm not arguing that Job didn't know the character of God. I'm arguing that he knew it very well but it seemed incompatible with what he knew of God.His friends said, in essence, either you can't understand or judge God or that you must be evil and are in denial.Job on the other hand knew God would not permit his suffering to be without purpose but he could not find it. So he was trying to reason out a way that it made sense. He knew it was not for his sins. So why?Job was still trying to understand God in order to properly worship and emulate Him. His friends were offering platitudes and stock 'Sunday School answers' and so learned nothing. In Job's struggling he learned much. 1
Franktalk Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I think we may be more similar than you think. I would agree that everything is black and white, but I would not agree that the Gospel has no hypothesis (theory's are based on facts) or unknowns. For example, to a person living the law of Moses, there was no higher law. Yet we know now a higher law exists. Pure science, like pure religion, is a vehicle for discovering truth.The layered and continuing revelation from God is a path for us to follow. The layered and continuing theories of man are not a path for us to follow. Learn what we can but filter it through scripture. Do not learn what you can and then filter scripture.Again the Church does not worship the vehicle of science because it is of man. You can call an idol anything you wish it is still an idol.
The Nehor Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 Again the Church does not worship the vehicle of science because it is of man. You can call an idol anything you wish it is still an idol.But to be an idol you would have to grant it godhood. Either somehow giving it power to save or seeing it as perfection and worthy of worship. Some have done that of course.But it's not an idol to those who do not.
Franktalk Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I think you may have misunderstood me.Yes I may have. The questions that Job were asking were meant for the future. God used Job as His messenger for a future message. One that would not make sense for over a thousand years. But people could still hold onto the idea that earthly punishment may not mean you are evil. This part of the message had immediate application. The righteous should hold fast to their righteousness.
Franktalk Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 But to be an idol you would have to grant it godhood. Either somehow giving it power to save or seeing it as perfection and worthy of worship. Some have done that of course.But it's not an idol to those who do not.On this we agree completely.
BCSpace Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 A matter of semantics I suppose, but I think you have just proven that we have. By committing now to accept all truth, we have essentially incorporated all truth now.I would argue that we can't incorporate that which we do not have.Looking forward to the Atonement as if it had already been made would be an example of such incorporation. Having one's calling and election made sure would be another. Simply having faith (hoping for things which are not seen which are true) would be yet another.Again the Church does not worship the vehicle of science because it is of man. You can call an idol anything you wish it is still an idol.But to be an idol you would have to grant it godhood. Either somehow giving it power to save or seeing it as perfection and worthy of worship. Some have done that of course.Sure. But I have posited merely that we worship on the altars of science, not that we worship science itself. Interestingly one actually uses the scientific method to find out if the doctrine is true. John 7:17 for example.
Franktalk Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 Sure. But I have posited merely that we worship on the altars of science, not that we worship science itself. Interestingly one actually uses the scientific method to find out if the doctrine is true. John 7:17 for example.Joh 7:17 If any man will do His (the Father's) will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.If you are walking in the spirit to maintain a close relationship with the Father and you have given up your will to do His then the promise is that you will know if Christ is doing the Father's will or the will of Christ."The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/scientific%20method Definition of EMPIRICAL1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data> 2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory> 3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws> Since faith and communication by spiritual means is not verifiable then it does not match the expectations of the scientific method.Since science in general does not accept personal revelation then science can not be used to obtain a truth that requires a spiritual eye. It is my belief that all truth is obtained by spiritual means. Science can and does obtain relationships between parts of the creation but the truth behind the creation is not something science will ever get close to finding because God is left out of the search.
The Nehor Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 Looking forward to the Atonement as if it had already been made would be an example of such incorporation. Having one's calling and election made sure would be another. Simply having faith (hoping for things which are not seen which are true) would be yet another.True but that is because they have the truth about the Atonement taking place, their calling & election made sure, and the faith from God. If they didn't have that truth they wouldn't have that truth (to use a tautology). In the same way I incorporate the truth of the coming Resurrection and Judgment Day but there are other truths I do not yet have.There are amazing things still to come that God will reveal and I can't incorporate them yet until he reveals them to the world or reveals them to me. Sometimes it's good to remember that we are still the early LDS and that those in the future will look at our silly misunderstandings of doctrine the same way we do at some made by the earliest saints.
thesometimesaint Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 Franktalk:A theory is actually more useful than a fact. IE; Gravity is a fact, but it is the explanation of that fact(theory) that makes it possible to predict what gavity does.
Nathair/|\ Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.Haldane, J. B. S, Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.There is another theory which states that this has already happenedAdams, Douglas; The Restaurant at the End of the Universe 1
annewandering Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 Of course there is the possibility that the speed of light is a variable not a constant.
TAO Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) annewandering, the physicists are debating about the speed of light in a vaccum.In water, light actually travels faster than it does through a vaccum, but that is through a medium, so it doesn't really count, in a sense, I guess.So the debate is over whether they will have to change forumulas or not, really =P. Edited September 28, 2011 by TAO
Programmer Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 Huh? What has a first order polynomial got to do with the fact that the speed of light in a medium is the square root of the reciprocal of the permittivity ε and permeability µ of the medium? The speed of light in a vacuum is what matters by the way and in fact, it is probably just a contingent fact that light travels at that speed. All we need for relativity is some maximum speed and the resulting Lorentz transformations.The connection between the order of a polynomial and the dimension of spacetime also seems obscure. What the heck are you talking about??TarskiI'm not interested in replying to you with your tone.
russianwolfe Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Yea, I just noticed that myself!It would be crazy and cool if this was verified again in another experiment. I wonder how they would reconcile it with all the evidence that has mounted over the decades which confirm that E=MC(2).Personally, I think it is much more likely there was an error in the experiment that lead to this data. Though, apparently they have been testing the experiments parameters for months and have confirmed their findings are comfortably within a margin of error.Remember, Einstein's theories did not destroy Newton's gravity calculations. They modified our understanding of how gravity and speed influence mass. Most calculations performed to get Curiousity from Earth to Mars use Newton's theories not Einstein. Einstein would only apply if we could accelerate the space craft to a signoificant percentage of the speed of light.If they are able to repeat the experiment with the same results, it will modify our understanding of Einstein's theories not destroy them. After all, his theories are why we understand enough to make PCs. Will PCs cease to operate properly because we find a particle that is FTL?MarvinPS A friend of mine who has a Phd in Physics is of the opinion that they will find that they overlooked something and then everything will return to normal.
Franktalk Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Of course there is the possibility that the speed of light is a variable not a constant. There are theories to that effect. If you are interested here is a link.http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5349.pdf
Zakuska Posted September 29, 2011 Author Posted September 29, 2011 I know this isn't very academic but...Does Gravity effect the speed of light?http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060828065238AA2gIcK
altersteve Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Very interesting article on Deseret News:http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700186050/Newly-discovered-particle-gone-in-60-nanoseconds.htmlSo this particle got somewhere... 60 nanoseconds before it ever got there?Mind = blown.
Tarski Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) TarskiI'm not interested in replying to you with your tone.Touchy.Actually, I think I was rather nice about it. I was tempted to simply say that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I decided to see what kind of explanation you would give just in case I was missing something (and maybe I am).So I asked.Surely, the phrase "what the heck" that I used to emphasize my puzzlement wasn't what made you decide to excuse yourself from providing the explanation was it? Edited October 9, 2011 by Tarski
shalamabobbi Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 That didn't take long..http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/slow-down-error-produced-faster-than-light-neutrinos/
Zakuska Posted October 18, 2011 Author Posted October 18, 2011 That didn't take long..http://lezgetreal.co...ight-neutrinos/DOH!!! See even Scientists make mistake in their Math. I wonder how many Carbon dates have been screwed up because of fuzzy math?
The Nehor Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Oh well, warp drive will have to wait. Sad but expected.
Recommended Posts