Does Science Have All The Answers?

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen;

Is the carpenter the servant of the hammer, or does the carpenter merely using the hammer?

[Luigi]

I think you cheapen what religion has to say by distilling its answers to the Big Questions to nothing more than "Because God did it or wants it that way." Religion has a lot more to say than that.

My personal religious beliefs do a pretty good job of answering the Big Questions. I don't have all the answers and specificity I would like, but Mormonism answers some biggies:

1. Does God exist?
   
2. What is our relationship to Him?
   
3. Where did we come from?
   
4. What is the purpose of our sojourn on earth?
   
5. What happens to us after we die?
   
6. What is our ultimate destiny?
   

Now, you may claim that our answers to these questions are wrong, or wishful thinking, or whatever. But you can't say that these answers don't exist.

-Smac

It may be satisfying to have answers to your questions but we who abandoned belief in Mormonism didn't do so because we thought science had ALL the answers or that Mormonism didn't provide some answers to our questions we just felt the answers Mormonism offered seemed highly improbable. Science has answers to your questions they are just not as emotionally satisfying and scientists aren't generally going to pretend their answers are certain. The world is full of those who will offer you allegedly 'certain' answers and they will generally contradict each other and their means of divine revelation about the reality of their claims will generally be manipulated into a foregone conclusion.

[John Larsen]

John Larsen;

Is the carpenter the servant of the hammer, or does the carpenter merely using the hammer?

The carpenter is the servant of the architect and the designer of the hammer.

[John Larsen]

I think you cheapen what religion has to say by distilling its answers to the Big Questions to nothing more than "Because God did it or wants it that way." Religion has a lot more to say than that.

My personal religious beliefs do a pretty good job of answering the Big Questions. I don't have all the answers and specificity I would like, but Mormonism answers some biggies:

1. Does God exist?
   
2. What is our relationship to Him?
   
3. Where did we come from?
   
4. What is the purpose of our sojourn on earth?
   
5. What happens to us after we die?
   
6. What is our ultimate destiny?
   

Now, you may claim that our answers to these questions are wrong, or wishful thinking, or whatever. But you can't say that these answers don't exist.

-Smac

Smac:

I think science answers these questions, it just doesn't give the answers that people want to hear.

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

As God is also the carpenter, architect, and designer of the hammer, so can the carpenter. Modern concepts of divisions of labor did not apply a relative few years ago.

You are still unnecessarily conflating the tool with the tool user.

[Luigi]

God is the Great Scientist. He knows all the Laws and he knows all the principles that are needed to keep those laws in check. We often see discussions about whether man has learned more than he is able to handle on a moral and social level. God doesn't have this problem, which is probably why he has allowed us to gain knowledge in progressive steps rather than giving it to us all at once.

True. If God exists he doesn't believe in the supernatural or miracles or even 'spirituality' because all of those things have perfectly reasonable explanations. If God exists he doesn't operate on anything like 'faith' but on the understanding endowed by eternal observation and the scientist operating on his albeit limited observation comes closer to imitating God than any number of worshipers exercising faith in prayers, scriptures and rituals.

[ttribe]

Smac:

I think science answers these questions, it just doesn't give the answers that people want to hear.

If that is the case, then why are you an agnostic and not a full-blow atheist (as you are so fond of reminding us)?

[Deborah]

True. If God exists he doesn't believe in the supernatural or miracles or even 'spirituality' because all of those things have perfectly reasonable explanations. If God exists he doesn't operate on anything like 'faith' but on the understanding endowed by eternal observation and the scientist operating on his albeit limited observation comes closer to imitating God than any number of worshipers exercising faith in prayers, scriptures and rituals.

Key words: God doesn't operate on faith. Man, however, is not God and does indeed have to operate on faith until his knowledge is complete. Science is the tool by which God operates. But that science is so far beyond what we understand here that we must exercise faith to even begin to apply science.

For example, the Wright brothers had faith that they should be able to recreate the ability to fly as they observed in the birds. As a result of their faith they developed the science which allowed them to do this. Now to a person not versed in the science of aviation, I take it on faith that when I get on a plane it will fly because someone was able to figure out the science to make it happen.

Any scientific revelation begins as a seed of faith that something can be done or something exists according to a natural law. It then is up to that person to prove his theory or to find the laws of math or physics to make it happen. Once he does that he no longer acts on faith because he has knowledge of that thing he has created or proved.

[David Hume]

So why do secularists point to "science" as a basis for denying the existence of God? I don't think science can make that determination.

Science can make a determination as to the existence of certain formulations of "God". For example, the notion that there exists an omnipotent, benevolent God is contradicted by even the most rudimentary scientific inquiries.

[David Hume]

If God is the Great Scientist, who exercise his power by merely exercising the laws and powers of science, then shouldn't we worship science instead of God? It would seem in your model science is the greater power and God is subordinate.

Maybe we shouldn't worship science instead of God, but it would definitely behoove us to look to science to explicate God's attributes. Too many religious people instead receive God's attributes by "revelation" and deform science to fit their a priori conception of God. That's a mistake.

If God is a God of Law, but God is not the source of the Law, we should find the source and worship that. If it is the law, worship the Law, if it is the source of the Law, we should call that God and and worship that.

Sounds about right to me.

[David Hume]

If that is the case, then why are you an agnostic and not a full-blow atheist (as you are so fond of reminding us)?

Perhaps science gives us the "I don't know," when what we'd really like to hear is "God certainly exists and He loves you."

[notHagoth7]

Interesting:

Here are the seven questions:

Several of these items are particularly interesting when viewed from a Gospel perspective.

This is the one that grabs my interest the most:

What is reality really?

The material world may, at some level, lie beyond comprehension, but Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics at the University of Vienna, is profoundly hopeful that physicists have merely scratched the surface of something much bigger. Zeilinger specialises in quantum experiments that demonstrate the apparent influence of observers in the shaping of reality. "Maybe the real breakthrough will come when we start to realise the connections between reality, knowledge and our actions," he says. The concept is mind-bending, but it is well established in practice. Zeilinger and others have shown that particles that are widely separated can somehow have quantum states that are linked, so that observing one affects the outcome of the other. No one has yet fathomed how the universe seems to know when it is being watched.

[spinner]

I think you cheapen what religion has to say by distilling its answers to the Big Questions to nothing more than "Because God did it or wants it that way." Religion has a lot more to say than that.

My personal religious beliefs do a pretty good job of answering the Big Questions. I don't have all the answers and specificity I would like, but Mormonism answers some biggies:

1. Does God exist?
   
2. What is our relationship to Him?
   
3. Where did we come from?
   
4. What is the purpose of our sojourn on earth?
   
5. What happens to us after we die?
   
6. What is our ultimate destiny?
   

Now, you may claim that our answers to these questions are wrong, or wishful thinking, or whatever. But you can't say that these answers don't exist.

-Smac

The supposed answers of Mormonism to these 'biggies' are not much more than variations on "it's turtles all the way down". If you explain that the universe is god's creation, then who or what created god? If we exist because god created us, why does god exist? If we are created in god's image, what is the origin of that image? If we are god's children, who are god's parents? If our purpose is explained by reference to god's plan, what is god's purpose and why did god choose that purpose?

Yeah, science doesn't have all the answers, but attributing things to god gets us no closer to explaining the ultimate reality of things.

[Honorentheos]

John Larsen:

As God is also the carpenter, architect, and designer of the hammer, so can the carpenter. Modern concepts of divisions of labor did not apply a relative few years ago.

You are still unnecessarily conflating the tool with the tool user.

I wonder if the hammer has the power to dethrone the carpenter?

Alma 42:22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

Law inflicteth punishment? If God were to oppose the law he would lose his position?

Your analogy is not adequate to the task it has undertaken.

[ttribe]

Perhaps science gives us the "I don't know," when what we'd really like to hear is "God certainly exists and He loves you."

Is "I don't know" the answer Mr. Larsen was alluding to? Certainly, I interpreted his statement as being far more concrete.

[Black Moclips]

I think you cheapen what religion has to say by distilling its answers to the Big Questions to nothing more than "Because God did it or wants it that way." Religion has a lot more to say than that.

My personal religious beliefs do a pretty good job of answering the Big Questions. I don't have all the answers and specificity I would like, but Mormonism answers some biggies:

1. Does God exist?
   
2. What is our relationship to Him?
   
3. Where did we come from?
   
4. What is the purpose of our sojourn on earth?
   
5. What happens to us after we die?
   
6. What is our ultimate destiny?
   

Now, you may claim that our answers to these questions are wrong, or wishful thinking, or whatever. But you can't say that these answers don't exist.

-Smac

But those weren't the questions you offered in your initial example. Yes, right or wrong, religion does offer up an explanation to the set of questions you listed in this post.

[rodheadlee]

John Larsen said: The carpenter is the servant of the architect and the designer of the hammer.

That's what they like to think, but we carpenters take a vision from the architect and create a building from existing matter. Their plans often need in the field revision to actually work. All architects should first be a carpenter before going to drawing school. I serve no hammer either, my nailgun serves me.

Carry on, nice thread.

[Daniel Peterson]

I genuinely don't understand the urge some people apparently feel to declare religion "better" than science.

But, by the same token, I really don't understand the urge some others feel to declare science "better" than religion.

Are hammers "better" than screwdrivers? Is chemistry "better" than history? Is painting "better" than poetry? Is north better than south?

And, by the way, the tale that many of us were raised with, about there being some sort of perpetual war between science and religion, is outdated, agenda-driven, propagandistic mythology.

[handys003]

If science had all the answers the ballgame would be over. Know more fun exploring and what would be the point of living in a world without pursuits and discussions. What a boring life it would be yes indeed.

[Arc]

I genuinely don't understand the urge some people apparently feel to declare religion "better" than science.

But, by the same token, I really don't understand the urge some others feel to declare science "better" than religion.

Are hammers "better" than screwdrivers? Is chemistry "better" than history? Is painting "better" than poetry? Is north better than south?

And, by the way, the tale that many of us were raised with, about there being some sort of perpetual war between science and religion, is outdated, agenda-driven, propagandistic mythology.

Dr. Peterson,

You should know better than to make statements such as contained in your last sentence above. Not only is it patently false, it makes you appear a bit out of touch.

As a professional scientist and technology manager who has worked in government and industry in the US and abroad, I can tell you that the battle between science and religion is real and as important as it ever was. The two enterprises are diametrically opposed, whether religionists wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

This battle involves nothing less than the rational against the irrational, and reality against delusion. With the intrusion of fundamentalist religions into politics and from there to science policy, the skirmish lines are becoming more numerous and well defined each day.

Science and scientific knowledge are based on verification of testable hypotheses with reproducible physical evidence. The truth this knowledge represents is evident in the social and technical advancements made by humankind in the last 400 years or so.

Religious truth, (and especially Mormon truth), is based on pronouncements by leaders and a burning in the bosom (subjective feelings and emotions) regarding fictional scriptures and revelations. Its value is evidenced in (among other things) blatant racism and a general distrust of intellectual pursuit and science (the mantle far outweighs the intellect / some truths are not useful).

The fact that nobody else on this board has called you on your assertion as to a lack of conflict between science and religion is telling.

[ttribe]

Dr. Peterson,

You should know better than to make statements such as contained in your last sentence above. Not only is it patently false, it makes you appear a bit out of touch.

As a professional scientist and technology manager who has worked in government and industry in the US and abroad, I can tell you that the battle between science and religion is real and as important as it ever was. The two enterprises are diametrically opposed, whether religionists wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

This battle involves nothing less than the rational against the irrational, and reality against delusion. With the intrusion of fundamentalist religions into politics and from there to science policy, the skirmish lines are becoming more numerous and well defined each day.

Science and scientific knowledge are based on verification of testable hypotheses with reproducible physical evidence. The truth this knowledge represents is evident in the social and technical advancements made by humankind in the last 400 years or so.

Religious truth, (and especially Mormon truth), is based on pronouncements by leaders and a burning in the bosom (subjective feelings and emotions) regarding fictional scriptures and revelations. Its value is evidenced in (among other things) blatant racism and a general distrust of intellectual pursuit and science (the mantle far outweighs the intellect / some truths are not useful).

The fact that nobody else on this board has called you on your assertion as to a lack of conflict between science and religion is telling.

Telling of what? That many of us disagree with you? Shocking. It seems you are hell-bent on fighting a one-sided war. For many of us, we see little (if any) problem merging our religious beliefs with the scientific knowledge of the day.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Telling of what? That many of us disagree with you? Shocking. It seems you are hell-bent on fighting one-sided war. For many of us, we see little (if any) problem merging our religious beliefs with the scientific knowledge of the day.

Amen!! I see that science is great and in no way takes away from religion. I also see that religion in no way hinders science.

I guess science could "be better" than religion but only in the minds of those that hold such a view.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This battle involves nothing less than the rational against the irrational, and reality against delusion. With the intrusion of fundamentalist religions into politics and from there to science policy, the skirmish lines are becoming more numerous and well defined each day.

Science and scientific knowledge are based on verification of testable hypotheses with reproducible physical evidence. The truth this knowledge represents is evident in the social and technical advancements made by humankind in the last 400 years or so.

So you would conclude that the big bang and abiogenesis have been "tested" by a hypotheses with reproducible physical evidence?

[Jeff K.]

The split between science and religion is a false schism that finds its origins in an anti Catholic tract written in the last century.

[notHagoth7]

You should know better than to make statements such as contained in your last sentence above.

Why would you claim he lacks the knowledge to say such a thing?

Not only is it patently false, it makes you appear a bit out of touch.

I've read a number of fascinating texts that show science and faith are moving closer together - not further apart.

That offends many religionists. And many scientists. But it's true all the same.

...I can tell you that the battle between science and religion is real and as important as it ever was.

Between science and religion, perhaps.

Not between science and a dynamic, vibrant faith.

Faith grows and expands. And can encompass science.

The two enterprises are diametrically opposed, whether religionists wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Again, you're confusing religion with faith. They are not necessarily one and the same.

This battle involves nothing less than the rational against the irrational, and reality against delusion.

What is reality?

Quantum physics. What is it?

How does it relate to reason? To perception?

With the intrusion of fundamentalist religions into politics and from there to science policy, the skirmish lines are becoming more numerous and well defined each day.

I agree there is considerable friction between rigid personalities in religion and rigid personalities in science. But that's more about human dynamics than it is about anything else.

Science and scientific knowledge are based on verification of testable hypotheses with reproducible physical evidence.

As is true faith. It is testable. And it generates evidence.

Religious truth, (and especially Mormon truth), is based on pronouncements by leaders and a burning in the bosom (subjective feelings and emotions) regarding fictional scriptures and revelations.

It's also based on the premise that linear time is not as immutable and impenetrable as religionists and scientists used to believe. Prophecy is no small facet in such a discussion.

Its value is evidenced in (among other things) blatant racism

...most everyone is a bigot of some sort. Racial or otherwise. People like to have some group they can look down their nose at. Such a condition is unfortunate, but true.

...and a general distrust of intellectual pursuit and science

You'd be surprised how many faithful people love to learn. Love to experiment. And even enjoy challenging their own preconceptions to see if they hold up to rigorous testing.

(the mantle far outweighs the intellect / some truths are not useful).

I'd be interested to hear what you mean by mantle. We believe the glory of God is intelligence. And we genuinely try to honor that reality. To pursue such things.

But, some truths actually are useless. Tell me who won whatever ball game last night and I could hardly care less. (Not that I'm indifferent to someone's love for sports - just that I see zero lasting value in such fleeting data.)

The fact that nobody else on this board has called you on your assertion as to a lack of conflict between science and religion is telling.

We'll call you on your assertion.

The conflict is between people with rigid mindsets.

And occasionally between rigid institutions and scientific theory.

But not between scientific truth and faith. Not even close.