Does Science Have All The Answers?

[hordak]

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?

The hammer is the oldest tool invented. Sure it's been upgraded, made of better materials, more aesthetically, pleasing and comes in different varieties but it ultimately serves the same purpose it always has. Knocking things into place, people into submission or holding stuff together with the the oldest hardware, the nail.

The screwdriver on the other hand is a more recent discovery.It doesn't resist change, it lives for it and acknowledges that one size doesn't fit all with it's large variety of heads/bits. And in a pinch the screw driver can do the work of a hammer.But not the other way around.

The screw driver is clearly the superior tool.

[Scottie]

I also see that religion in no way hinders science.

Are you kidding me?? Tell that to the embryonic stem cell researchers!

Religion quite often hinders science. Can you imagine where society would be today if science had been allowed to progress through the dark ages?

[thesometimesaint]

Scottie:

I have nothing against Stem Cell research, and I'm about as religious as they come.

The misapplication of science is just as detrimental to humans and the misapplication of religion.

[Scottie]

The misapplication of science is just as detrimental to humans and the misapplication of religion.

Don't confuse ethics with religion.

Sometimes science may do things which are unethical, but that shouldn't tie into any one religion. An atheist may protest unethical scientific advancements as easily as a theist.

Religionists sometimes fight against certain scientific advancements simply because these advancements go against their religious views, not because they believe it will cause harm.

[Jeff K.]

Do not presume to seperate ethics from religion.

[Jeff K.]

How can a scientist presume to protest against certain scientific acts when there no objective source by which to measure the efficacy? There can be good relativistic reasons for almost any action, those we presume to be ethical as well as unethical.

Religionists sometimes fight against certain scientific advancements simply because these advancements go against their religious views, not because they believe it will cause harm.

That is incorrect. More accurately, one might say "some" people of religion will fight against "certain" or "some" scientific advancements simply because these advancements go against their religious views.

I have yet to find a true scientific advancement that goes against the views I have as a Latter Day Saint. In this case you are whistling in the dark.

[Jason]

What hindered embryonic stem cell researchers was the fact that researchers asked for the creation and destruction of human life in order to treat it as raw materials.

No one hindered them from using cell lines that had already been replicated - the ban on federal funds was only on creating more cell lines, and there were no restrictions on private funding for the same purpose.

Oh, and they were also hindered by the fact that they made unrealistic claims as to what could be acheived.

[thesometimesaint]

Scottie:

And an atheist can commit/have committed gross violations of human rights. For an atheist to presume to tell me how superior his ethics are while telling me how bad mine are is simply ignorant of history, and baiting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you kidding me?? Tell that to the embryonic stem cell researchers!

Religion quite often hinders science. Can you imagine where society would be today if science had been allowed to progress through the dark ages?

It is possible (and likley) I worded it poorly. I am just saying that in a general sense both can exsist. That is what I meant. Of course certain beliefs by people can infulence what one does in the name of science or religion that might have an effect on one or the other respectively.

I find that people don't reject something just because it is scientific. Some poeple do but as a gerneral rule people don't.

I was merely pointing out that I can accept what science teaches and at the same time accpet what religion teaches. Does this make more sense to you in what I am trying to communicate?

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

Not entirely true. Virtually all stem cell research done in this country was done on all ready existing cells from IVF.

[Analytics]

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?

Better analogies would be to ask if fantasy is better than reality, if fiction is better than truth, or if subjectivity is better than objectivity.

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.

To the extent there isn

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Fictions have a funny way of becoming realities. Not that long ago if you were to time travel to Salem Mass., and try to tell people about television. You'd be burned at the stake. That was a real possibility, and not one I would particularly relish.

True.

Not true. Science does not deal in truth claim. Only what can be demonstrated.

Different methodologies for both. That doesn't make either inherently better or worse just different.

What a small sterile world you have created with all those benefits of science.

Article of Faith #9. 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.

[ruski_canuk]

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.

You are forgetting function.

Is a car better than a plane if I want to get around the world in less than a day? Is the account in genesis better for understanding life's diversity than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"?

No, science is not intrinsically better... not until you define what it is you are after.

Still genuinely misunderstanding?

[Analytics]

Article of Faith #9. 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.

That's my point. What great and important truths has God revealed in the 170 years since those words were written? If we compared the knowledge gained through science over that time period to the knowledge gained through religion, which list would be more impressive?

I think what we see is that we know longer really believe all that God has revealed: we no longer believe that death entered the world about 6,000 years ago, we no longer believe that a flood covered the entire world and killed everybody who wasn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's my point. What great and important truths has God revealed in the 170 years since those words were written? If we compared the knowledge gained through science over that time period to the knowledge gained through religion, which list would be more impressive?

It is different type of knowledge that God has revealed through prophets. Oh, (a thought just popped in here) who is to say taht the technical advances in science and medicine were not directly related to Gods inspiration or guidanceto the people that made the discoveries? That is what I beleive and I am welcome to them just as you are welcome to your belief that God didn't.

[Jason]

That's my point. What great and important truths has God revealed in the 170 years since those words were written? If we compared the knowledge gained through science over that time period to the knowledge gained through religion, which list would be more impressive?

I have learned a great deal about myself and others through religion since that time (I would have had to, since I wasn't around 170 years ago). Things that I were told at first have become much more sure knowledge, and what was at first mystery is becoming more clear by inches. Religion is a way to personal knowledge that science simply cannot compete with.

I think what we see is that we know longer really believe all that God has revealed: we no longer believe that death entered the world about 6,000 years ago, we no longer believe that a flood covered the entire world and killed everybody who wasn

[John Larsen]

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)?

I find the question of the existence of God to be generally uninteresting. This is mostly because even if you established the existence of God, you would have established nothing else. The mere existence of God does not provide these other meaningful questions, although for some reason people like to pretend that they do. For example, if God exists that doesn't mean that He is God, or that there is only one God, or that there is a human soul, etc.

I don't know why so much time is spent on the question, nor do I know why when people think they have proven God, they think the reset of their metaphysical beliefs suddenly make sense.

I am an agnostic rather than an atheist because I don't care if God exists or not, atheists seem to be interested in the question. However, my inclination is that there is no such thing.

[maxrep12]

This subject amuses me.

Some like to point to subjects that stand on the frontiers of science(string theory, worm holes) and say, "We cannot rely on science". Yet, these same individuals are inextricably entrenched within their very lives to the wonderful advancements brought about through the scientific method. From the synthetic fibers in our apparel, modes of tranportation,communication, medical services, farming, etc, etc. We rely on science and we have vested solid confidence in it.

At the days close, we cook our food with modern appliances, in a heated well lit environment, and it is at this moment we through religion a bone. Grace is said, and we eat. When we are married to the scientific method, this compartmentalization seems silly, but some of us feel the need to wipe our feet on the very privileges we shamelessly enjoy.

[John Larsen]

This subject amuses me.

Some like to point to subjects that stand on the frontiers of science(string theory, worm holes) and say, "We cannot rely on science". Yet, these same individuals are inextricably entrenched within their very lives to the wonderful advancements brought about through the scientific method. From the synthetic fibers in our apparel, modes of tranportation,communication, medical services, farming, etc, etc. We rely on science and we have vested solid confidence in it.

At the days close, we cook our food with modern appliances, in a heated well lit environment, and it is at this moment we through religion a bone. Grace is said, and we eat. When we are married to the scientific method, this compartmentalization seems silly, but some of us feel the need to wipe our feet on the very privileges we shamelessly enjoy.

Right. There are many who suggest that science changes too much to be relied upon. But do these people believe that 737s are about to start falling out of the air because the principles and science that their construction is based on will change? Hardly.

One of the chief differences between science and religion is that new scientific theories must explain all predeceasing theories and evidence. Science changes, it is true, but it does so by acts of supplanting and subsuming the previous generation's theories. The same cannot be said of religion. When we look back on the history of Mormonism do we see a systematic "line upon line" of progression. No. We see the scattered craters of the brethren "speaking as men" which was taken for doctrine. The path from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson contains many dead ends.

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

Speak for thyself John.

[John Larsen]

John Larsen:

Speak for thyself John.

Weird

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This subject amuses me.

Some like to point to subjects that stand on the frontiers of science(string theory, worm holes) and say, "We cannot rely on science".

Who has said this in this thread? I haven't read it all but I know I havn't said this. I haven't even said anything close to this. Not that you are talkin about me, but I am curious if you can pull a quote from this thread on the matter.

If I didn't know any better this sounds like a strawman argument.

There are some poeple that do say that but as a whole I don't think many on this board hold this view.

[Arc]

nothagoth7 said: Would you claim that he lacks the knowledge to say such a thing/

No. I have watched DCP's apologetics career on multiple boards for some time. I know that, as an apologist, he is expected to make certain pronouncements without the nuances that the subject matter might require in civil or academic discourse. This time he simply stepped over the line. Of coourse he knows better.

Regarding religion, faith and science, I fear that you are the one who is confusing definitions. Faith is unfounded belief, by definition (and even according to one of your colleagues on this thread). When you say that there is no conflict between scientific truth and faith, my response is that may want to read more about science, or about faith, or both.

One who has faith believes in something for which he or she has no verifiable physical evidence. Such a mindset or way of thinking (often called magical thinking) is the exact opposite of science. Science requires verifiable reproducible evidence. From the emergence of humankind until a few hundred years ago or so, before development and deployment of the scientific method in society, humankind had no choice to get by on unfounded belief. You call it faith, I call it superstition. But whatever you call it, it didn't work very well.

Jeff K. said: Do not presume to separate ethics from religion.

You have had plenty of folks come onto this site and explain to you why religion has no special claim on ethics. The definition of ethics does not include the word religion. If you continue to believe that ethics arose from organized religion, or that ethics and religion are inexorably linked, then you are just not paying attention.

Jeff K. said: I have yet to find a true scientific advancement that goes against the views I have as a Latter Day Saint. In this case you are whistling in the dark.

Again, if you do not see any conflicts between science and the Mormon religion, then you need to read more about science or religion, or both. Or perhaps you are an NOM, in which case I apologize in advance for the following. Here are some examples of where hard science conflicts with what Mormonism teaches: Kolob vs. God of flesh and bones, vs. general relativity - plenty of conflict there (perhaps you do not believe in Kolob). Then there is the Jaredite journey upon the seas in sealed unpowered submersibles filled with people animals and supplies for 344 days (perhaps you do not personally believe in that part of the BoM). There is the lack of Semitic DNA in the Amerindians (perhaps you don't believe in that part of the BoM either.) The conflicts go on and on and if you are comfortable in rationalizing them away, then (IMHO) you qualify as a magical thinker.

And, please do not say that the jury is out on these issues. If the scientific community even bothered to consider this silliness at all, it has rendered its verdict and left the building.

The conflict is not only in the definition of truth but more importantly in the way one acquires and validates it. Mormons acquire it from leaders or their scriptures and verify it by "feeling the spirit". Facts are of secondary or tertiary importance (again it's the "some truths are not useful" mentality). Rational people do not go through life this way.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K. said: Do not presume to separate ethics from religion.

You have had plenty of folks come onto this site and explain to you why religion has no special claim on ethics. The definition of ethics does not include the word religion. If you continue to believe that ethics arose from organized religion, or that ethics and religion are inexorably linked, then you are just not paying attention

.

Rather silly and illogical. People who give an opinion as to why they think religion has no claim on ethics does not make it so. Though it does appear that you hold opinion to be fact. I have yet to see religion and ethics beomce separate. It might be amusing if you can show me a religion without ethics in it. Nor does the word ethics require the word religion in it, anymore than the word blood requires the word "heart" in it.

Ethics arose from an objective source and religion happens to be the organized catagory of that source. I pay attention, but you I fear are not really knowledgeable enough to pay attention to.

Jeff K. said: I have yet to find a true scientific advancement that goes against the views I have as a Latter Day Saint. In this case you are whistling in the dark.

Again, if you do not see any conflicts between science and the Mormon religion, then you need to read more about science or religion, or both. Or perhaps you are an NOM, in which case I apologize in advance for the following. Here are some examples of where hard science conflicts with what Mormonism teaches: Kolob vs. God of flesh and bones, vs. general relativity - plenty of conflict there (perhaps you do not believe in Kolob). Then there is the Jaredite journey upon the seas in sealed unpowered submersibles filled with people animals and supplies for 344 days (perhaps you do not personally believe in that part of the BoM). There is the lack of Semitic DNA in the Amerindians (perhaps you don't believe in that part of the BoM either.) The conflicts go on and on and if you are comfortable in rationalizing them away, then (IMHO) you qualify as a magical thinker.

And, please do not say that the jury is out on these issues. If the scientific community even bothered to consider this silliness at all, it has rendered its verdict and left the building.

The conflict is not only in the definition of truth but more importantly in the way one acquires and validates it. Mormons acquire it from leaders or their scriptures and verify it by "feeling the spirit". Facts are of secondary or tertiary importance (again it's the "some truths are not useful" mentality). Rational people do not go through life this way

.

Let us begin with this...

There is no conflict between science and religion. You raise the question of Kolob vs God of flesh and bone, there is no conflict there that I can see. Are you saying God cannot have flesh and bone? Or there can be no God? I have yet to see either proved in any sensse of the word. If you wish to say it is unproven, then I agree, but that is what faith is about isn't it?

As to general relativity, which part? The part that was proven? Unproven? Then supported again? Do you know what the theory of general relativity is? I don't see conflict there either. You have yet to show it.

Regarding the Jaredite vessels, we aren't sure of the details since the text is based on religious not mechanical or architectural recordings, so your speculation that something cannot happen is about as accurate as someone speculating how it might have happened. I once went into a house and entered a room. The door closed behind me, and yet when it opened again I was in a different place and time. Is this magic? Or just an elevator? And yet unless we have a full accounting of what is written in its proper frame and context, to speculate on the method of science used in a religious text is quite frankly, a ridiculous requirement, something used by the unschooled.

Re: Semetic DNA --- Please don't give the old tired worn out DNA issue again, that has already been proven to be the reddest of herrings. Are you actually telling me you have done absolutely no reading on that issue? Can you be that uninformed or that disengenuous?

So far no conflicts. Just your desire for them.

And, please do not say that the jury is out on these issues. If the scientific community even bothered to consider this silliness at all, it has rendered its verdict and left the building.

Jury is still out. No verdict was rendered. You certainly are not the authority to say a verdict has been rendered.

Since you don't use facts very well, I think it will be hard for you to deal with them in any case.

[O-Brother]

Interesting:

Here are the seven questions:

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

I am not a scientist. I haven't studied any scientific discipline outside of the courses required to graduate from high school and college. But my impression is that folks who set up "science" as their god (that is, as a replacement explanation for God) end up with a false sense of security. I don't think human inquiry has even come close to answering the Big Questions (as evidenced by the above article).

-Smac

What does the average brain weight? 3 lbs? Less if you have one like mine. A 3 lbs brain will NEVER comprehend all the mysteries of the Universe without God's revelations and the Holy Ghost. The organ we have inside our skulls is great and fascinating but it's not powerful enough to handle the answers or the questions being asked by these scientists. I know of a Doctor who was an atheist until he had a near death experience, now he's a born again Christian. He too was all about science, cause and effect. Now he knows that God is the Cause and we are the Effect, as well as everything else here and beyond. His testimony is on video if you care to watch, I can post the link here.