Does Science Have All The Answers?

[John Larsen]

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.

Strange assertion coming from a Mormon. How much does God's brain weigh?

[notHagoth7]

This time he simply stepped over the line.

? That's intriguing. Sounds like a discussion between you and him. But in your paradigm, who defines the supposed boundary between what one can and cannot say?

Regarding religion, faith and science, I fear that you are the one who is confusing definitions.

Ah, semantics. Always fun.

Faith is unfounded belief...

Actually, not so much. Faith can grow out of belief...if one nurtures it, experiments w/it, and exercises it.

Just like a full-blown theory can grow out of an initial hunch, if one follows through on exploring/expanding/testing it.

by definition (and even according to one of your colleagues on this thread).

I'm unclear whose definition you're talking about. However, I'm not bound to other people's opinions. So by all means, feel free to engage w/them about their opinions if you wish.

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.

On a typical day, I actually do a fair amount of reading on science.

But is there a specific aspect of science that you'd recommend exploring further? If so, why?

And where specifically, in your opinion, are the perceived conflicts?

One who has faith believes in something for which he or she has no verifiable physical evidence.

That perhaps applies better to hope and belief.

Faith is generally grounded in some form of evidence, or is evidence. Sometimes it is physical.

(And just as there is a difference between evidence and proof, there is a difference between faith and full-blown knowing.)

Such a mindset or way of thinking (often called magical thinking) is the exact opposite of science.

Faith can be tested. And the test can be repeated. Much like a scientific hypothesis. Precisely how is that approach somehow less real than what you refer to as science?

Science requires verifiable reproducible evidence.

Same with faith. One can verify it, and reproduce the results internally. The key difference is that it's not transferable. Even though one can describe, explain, and publish manifestations of it. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to upload your faith to me. Or visa versa. It's a moccasin thing.

Just as you can't upload your conviction or certainty about certain scientific issues to someone else.

You call it faith, I call it superstition.

If condescension works for you, have at it. You are, however, speaking out of ignorance in this matter.

So in this matter, you are the one who has stepped over the line.

But whatever you call it, it didn't work very well.

The society you enjoy today is inherited, in part, from that tradition.

You and everything you enjoy are an outgrowth of that society.

So I'd say things have worked out reasonably well.

[Jerubaal]

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.

Possibly because scientific explanations of things usually don't feel the need to involve any god whatsoever, unless one were to consider the natural laws and the order of the universe to be a "god" of sorts. And because science has had some bad run-ins with specific expressions of traditional faith (i.e. Young Earth Creationism).

[Tchild2]

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

Smac - if "science" doesn't work for you and you find it ineffectual, by all means, use religion as your source of objective knowledge and abandon science as the useless mechanism for discovery of our world and all it has provided the human race. I am curious Smac, if your child or you yourself become ill, where would you go for help? Would you discard the emergency room facilities at your nearest hospital (substituting science for God and all) and depend entirely on your LDS God to heal you of your ills? Does your God, through his appointed prophet provide an avenue to heal sickness, provide shelter in the heat or cold, to assist in clothing, feeding or sheltering you in any way?

Science allows you the comfort to worship God, and not the other way around. If God exists, he/she/it uses "science" to let you live more than than the 40 years of hardscrabble living you might have as a human being dependant on the enviroment, luck and the law of "survival of the fittest" that is found in nature.

The Next time you evoke the word "science", use it with respect and gratitude for what is has offered you. It has given you life beyond nature's survival of the fittest. What do the scriptures say about the H1N1 virus"? About curing cancer, transporting a vehicle along rail lines, growing crops in Northern latitudes, treating a burn victim, recovering from chemical addiction etc etc?

God has a place for the believer, but you are here by the grace of science. Believe that.

[Jeff K.]

The statement is ridiculous on the face of it.

Science allows you the comfort to worship God, and not the other way around. If God exists, he/she/it uses "science" to let you live more than than the 40 years of hardscrabble living you might have as a human being dependant on the enviroment, luck and the law of "survival of the fittest" that is found in nature.

Science exists with God and He uses as we use it.

Now one might claim that science is the enemy of fundamentalist Christians. But Christianity and fundamental Christianity are no more equal than Phrenology (at one time an accepted branch of science) and Chemistry. Fundamentalists for example may teach against evolution (even scientists have done so at one time), and to be honest many who argue against evolution are providing a service to mankind. They ensure no theory is accepted on the basis of authority or tradition alone, they help keep the system honest.

But lets be honest, the false argument that Christians or attempts by some to paint Christians as being required to take the bible literally is not accurate. Before the modern period, very few people understood the first chapter of GEnesis as an exact account. Until the 17th century theologians insisted that if a biblical text contradicted science, it must be interpreted allegorically (read Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God"). Fundamentalists are often reductive and somewhat thoughtless in their interpretation of the Bible, this is especially true when rejection exists where allegory may still be in question. Evolution is often pointed to as the dividing line, and yet in our church there is not true doctrine regarding such a thing, it is unspoken within doctrinal texts because it is unimportant in regard to religious goals and has no impact on divine nature. It is mostly made important by those who seek a cudgel against religion for their own fundamentalist reasons, not for understanding or dialogue. Latter-Day Saints, like the churches of Judaism and Islam find that the theory of evolution to have little effect on doctrinal issues. Atheistic fundamentalists, like theistic fundamentalist are reductive in their reasoning.

[bizabra]

Of course science doesn't have all the answers, at least not at present. Religion doesn't either, at least not at present. However, as someone who believes in a God of Law and who doesn't create out of nothing, it is rather easy to reconcile both science and religion. 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.

BIZ: I used to think that, too. God knew all the Laws, so he could use them all. Made sense to me then. When I believed in god.

[Deborah]

BIZ: I used to think that, too. God knew all the Laws, so he could use them all. Made sense to me then. When I believed in god.

I'm sorry. It's too bad you abandoned what made sense.

[bizabra]

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.

BIZ: I fly because I can understand the physical mechanism that allows flight to happen. Science allowed that understanding, and the Wright brothers USED that understanding. I can KNOW the reason why that big plane is moving along way up there, no faith required.

BTW, the scientific method is all about DISproof, not proof. You don't "try to find a way" to prove your idea or to "make it" work. A scientist tests his theory, he doesn't PROVE it.

[Jeff K.]

The scientific method is more about probablilities going from the least probable to the most probable causes of physical science.

The scientific method does not answer the questions of "why" it is as it is, something scientists to this day wonder about and the scientific method cannot answer to.

The Wright Brothers had faith their theory would work, but it is neither the only theory of flight nor necessarily the most efficient. Other theories may come into effect or be discovered that will prove to be closer to a full understanding.

Science is all about faith and testing faith and adhereing to faith that has been tested successfully. The semantic argument aside, there is some truth to the matter that cannot be denied.

[bizabra]

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.

BIZ: I'd add that a hammer also has always been used to break things. Perhaps that is it's fundamental attribute. Nuts, bones, heads, rocks, etc. As a tool of force, that most likely came quickly into use on the heels of learning to break heads with it. Using it to hold things together with nails is likely it's most recent use.

Screwdrivers are not so useful for breaking things. Hence, it wasn't invented sooner. It is a marked improvement on holding things together, however!

[bizabra]

I'm sorry. It's too bad you abandoned what made sense.

BIZ: Aw, I'm sorry you're sorry!

[Honorentheos]

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?

Are you saying he can?

Old Thread on this Topic

Starting on this post and moving forward will save some discussion.

[Arc]

I pay attention, but you I fear are not really knowledgeable enough to pay attention to.

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.

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.

Since you seem to have problems recognizing the many conflicts between science and Mormonism, even when they are described to you, here is a step-by-step explanation of one example. I would have thought that the mention of Kolob vs. God of flesh and bone vs. relativity would have made the problem obvious.

However, you seemed to ignore the "vs." linkages part and consider them as three unrelated issues. Below are listed five teachings of the Mormon Church (1-5) and two scientific facts (6,7). If you disagree with any of these, I can provide references.

1) Kolob is the star nearest to the planet on which God lives.

2) God the Father and Jesus Christ are beings of flesh and bone.

3 )JF Smith, Brigham, Young and others taught that God works through natural laws.

"Whatever it may be that is done by the power of God is in accordance with natural law. "

J.F. Smith

4) All spirit is matter.

"All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter"(

D&C 131:78).

5) That which has no physical existence has no existence at all. (WJS, 60).

6) The closest star to our solar system (Proxima Centauri) is 4.2 light years away. No star, including Kolob, is closer.

7) Neither matter nor information can travel faster than the speed of light.

Here, then, is a clear explanation of one conflict between Mormon teachings and science.

- If God accomplishes his work in accordance with natural law, as the Mormon prophets assure us that he does, then his speed of travel is limited to the speed of light. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, not even information.

- Kolob must be at least 4.2 light years away from earth. Therefore, a round trip from Kolob to Earth and back (for matter or information) would require at least 8.4 years.

This raises all kinds of problems for the Mormon teachings, starting with prayer. Prayers are comprised of information. Information cannot travel faster than light. Therefore, the process of sending, receiving, and answering prayers from Earth to Kolob and back would require at least 8.4 years. The Mormon teaching that God lives near Kolob and listens to and answers prayers is not in conflict with science only if such answers take more than 8.4 years to receive after the prayer is offered.

What about the reported visitations from heavenly beings to Joseph Smith and angels in the Kirtland temple? These displays must have been planned at least 4.2 years in advance. For example, God the Father and Joseph Smith would have had to leave Kolob late in 1815 (Earth time) in order to appear to Joseph Smith in 1820.

And there was not enough time for the Angel Moroni to return to the presence of God near Kolob between his various visitations with Joseph Smith between 1823 and 1829. (Perhaps Moroni just hung out here on Earth and waited for Joseph to finish with the plates. If so, the fact that Joseph Smith just covered his face with his hat and didn't even look at the plates while translating them was no doubt was disturbing to Moroni.)

Not only do Mormon teachings about Kolob conflict directly with science, but exemplify the internal inconsistencies and logical problems that plague Mormonism overall.

If you require an explanation of special or general relativity in order to appreciate the conflict, I would be more than happy to provide it for you.

As to your comments regarding the view that science takes of Mormon teachings, I would point out to you that science renders its position (or verdicts) on issues through written statements by its many professional organizations and societies.

One such society, The National Geographic Society, in response to questions from the public regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, has stated in writing that the book, in terms of archeology and unlike the Bible, has no value to science whatsoever. Having served on the board of directors of an international scientific society, I will tell you that such statements are rare occurences and not made lightly.

The jury at NatGeo has rendered their verdict. It is unlikely that any other scientific organization would take up the issue of the historicity or factual value of the BoM as a historical record of the Amerindians or of any other non-fictional group of people.

[Jeff K.]

Neither matter nor information can travel faster than the speed of light.

And the earth is flat.... look up words like recessive velocity, or perhaps the Scharnhorst effect. I won't even get into physics theories on tachyons.

By the way, the earth is not flat. Space is curved, and more

[Deborah]

Not only do Mormon teachings about Kolob conflict directly with science, but exemplify the internal inconsistencies and logical problems that plague Mormonism overall.

Science as we can comprehend it with the senses we have in mortality.

It amazes me how limited in thinking are those who purport to look to science for all the answers. Science is always changing and always adding to its base of knowledge. Is it not possible that there are laws of physics and time and space not yet discovered? It seems if one decides in advance that something is impossible he will stop searching for answers.

[thesometimesaint]

arc:

You have of non sequiturs there.

[Arc]

And the earth is flat.... look up words like recessive velocity, or perhaps the Scharnhorst effect. I won't even get into physics theories on tachyons.

By the way, the earth is not flat. Space is curved, and more

Surely you can do better than the hypothetical (tachyons, Scharnhorst effect, etc.) If you are going to claim that there is no conflict between Mormon teachings and science, at least stick with science and do not invoke science fiction. Talking about tachyons does not help your credibility.

Here is an explanation of relativity (because it appears that you do not understand or appreciate it after all). I have provided a couple of examples of verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence from scientific experiments that illustrate the real world effects of relativity.

[Arc]

arc:

You have of non sequiturs there.

TSTS,

Did you mean to say that I have a lot of non sequiturs there?

If so, don't see any. You are welcome to point out an example.

(Perhaps the added explanation regarding the energy requirements and momentum effects of relativistic speed travel will help.)

[Arc]

Science as we can comprehend it with the senses we have in mortality.

It amazes me how limited in thinking are those who purport to look to science for all the answers. Science is always changing and always adding to its base of knowledge. Is it not possible that there are laws of physics and time and space not yet discovered? It seems if one decides in advance that something is impossible he will stop searching for answers.

Is this your way of saying that no matter what inconsistencies there are in Mormonism, science will someday discover that Mormonism is, in fact, self-consistent after all?

To a Mormon, I suppose that a statement would indicate faith. To a scientist, it indicates irrational thinking. Yet another example of the conflict between Mormonism and science.

[Jeff K.]

Surely you can do better than the hypothetical (tachyons, Scharnhorst effect, etc.) If you are going to claim that there is no conflict between Mormon teachings and science, at least stick with science and do not invoke science fiction. Talking about tachyons does not help your credibility.

No, I don't have to talk about tachyons and other theories, I will leave that to physicists like Dr. Feinberg at MIT, or Ennackal Chandy Sudarshan their advocacy of such is well known and their credibility is much greater than your somewhat limited post.

It is amazing, people who claim have faith in science, now believe science cannot advance beyond what we know now.

Isn't that the definition of irony?

Arc, you can copy and paste all day but I don't believe there is a scientist on the earth that takes your point of view that science cannot advance. And it is somewhat, shall we say humourous (in order to avoid stronger words) to believe God must simply "travel" at the speed of light and that somehow he could not simply step out of space time. Certainly the theories by reputable physicists support such a possibility.

Nor do we know exactly what that flesh and bone is specifically composed of do we?

So there we have it. You don't know enough, you don't know what level of knowledge or technology God has achieved, nor are you aware of the amount of energy required.

But you pass judgement that certain technologies or knowledge simply cannot exist. Yep. to you the earth is flat, and man cannot fly. I would say the mentality you display is roughly the same.

[thesometimesaint]

arc:

As no one knows where Heaven is, other than it is not here. Your whole premise is a non-sequitur.

[notHagoth7]

So, if God could travel at the speed of light (and because he is comprised of particles with mass he can only approach that speed limit asymptotically), he would require infinite energy and gain infinite momentum and therefore become infinitely massive (probably not a good thing).

Why would he need to traverse space at the speed of light if, as a being with infinite energy, he could instead fold time/space, and appear wherever/whenever he wishes?

[Mortal Man]

Here are the seven questions:

I would add "What is life?" to your list. That was Edward Teller's reponse during a Q&A session in the last lecture I heard him give.

[Honorentheos]

I would add "What is life?" to your list. That was Edward Teller's reponse during a Q&A session in the last lecture I heard him give.

That's an excellent one.

[Honorentheos]

Arc -

While I certain agree more with the position that the LDS view is in more conflict with science than the average LDS poster here seems to believe, the points you made are difficult to defend.

For example, the notion that the speed of light can not be exceeded is not a proven unalterable fact. Currently there is an observed odd phenomena that occurs at the quantum level where separated electron pairs BOTH respond to observation of the one in a manner that suggests that there is something being communicated between them in a manner that defys understanding. There is no effect of space-time on this relationship. We don't understand it, but it shows that we have a lot to learn about space-time, quantum mechanics, and how things may be interconnect on the "backside of the fabric of the universe" if you will.

But I think your questioning the ability of a physical, resurrected and most critically ETERNAL God to exist within the framework of known and theoretical physics is a solid point that modern/future LDS theology with either have to ignore or adjust to as it requires a complete breakdown of many, many things to be valid. My link to the other post was to show a long discussion on this point without having to recreate it but we may need to do so anyway.

The issue is dealing with time as it relates to our understanding of relativity and space-time. I'll recreate this part from the thread linked to for clarity -

"Under Newtonian physics time was considered a separate entity within equations that existed independent of matter, energy, etc. and had a linear nature. (i.e. - it marched on.)

"Our current understanding is that time does not exist independent of matter but is instead a way of conveying the relationship between two or more forms of matter. For example, the way we tell time is based on the relationship of the sun and the earth, and much of our understanding of time as people is reflected in this type of description. For example, most of us would describe what "yesterday" means to us by painting a picture of our relationships to various things or interactions (where we were, what we did, what we ate, who was there, etc.) In space-time, we are describing matter in terms of changing relationships. The space describes the coordinate location of the things in 3D and the time tells us where within that system everything was in relation to each other.

"What this means is 1 - time and matter are inseparably connected and 2 - the idea of eternity seems to apply to something outside of the realm of matter or 3 - means that material relationships continue to exist in some state beyond the indefinite in both directions (forward and reverse of these changes in the relationships) with infinite possibilities of relationships happening between infinite units of matter. And this becomes mind-boggling. I feel that point 1 combined with the big bang (a singularity of matter/energy that requires the relationships we know today to all be one thing - or not changing in their relationship which is something to think about) requires point 2 to be the preference over 3.

"Consider what 3 must mean - in order for there to be eternity and matter it requires an infinite number of relationships. Again - an infinite number of relationships. This means an infinite number of multi-verses beyond our imagination. Of that infinity, we must assume that there is a smaller set of infinite universes where one unit of matter has a concept of self (or identity) that is honorentheos. But there are so many (an infinite number!) of relationships between honorentheos and all other matter that it boggles the mind to consider all of the possibilities that this implies.

"So one aspect of this discussion that I think is frequently missed is the notion of personal identity - or your and my sense of self. It seems even within a given human life the thing that is "I" changes significantly to the point that there is little to say this is eternal. And in the blink of an eye that identity can change significantly to the point that many people would not say it is the same person occupying the same material form. (i.e. - with certain kinds of brain damage or more slowly with Alzheimer's for example). I believe that Sandra Day O'Connor came to this conclusion int eh sad case of her husband with Alzheimer's.

"Anyway, beyond this the idea of a God or gods with material bodies stands in contradiction with our current understanding of the universe. The idea of free will combined with personal, eternal identities seems problematic as well, and the notion that individual identity tied to a material form (even resurrected) can be eternal is in contradiction to our current model of how the universe works.

"Now we may have it wrong, and in fact we must have some things wrong since the model isn't perfect. But one can not ignore the evidence for the current model by just saying it's incomplete. I've often heard the appeal to multiple dimensions as being the solution, though this does significant damage to the idea of matter and personal identity as conveyed in most western religions. I think if any religion has anything remotely right, it is the eastern esoteric who seem to believe in a singularity from which we came (the 10,000 things we are part of) and to which we will some "day" return. "

I'd also add this link from the other thread that was posted later - On Time

Honestly it is inconsequential to most people's day-to-day religion so it won't matter - just like most science is really inconsequential to most people today other than in practical applications. It is funny to me that most of us could be just fine if science had called it good sometime around the mid-1800's as far as how much of it we really understand and use to interpret the world around us other than when the modern forms of science have been turned to some form of appliance or entertainment gizmo that we couldn't live without.

Seriously, we're still having a hard time with people accepting the most obvious of evidence of theories that have been tested and upheld of a century or more because some people somewhere became convinced a set of semitic myths are real. Why? Because it doesn't matter to them on a day-to-day level other than it may endanger their belief system.

And this is where I think this discussion really ends up - how does one find meaning in existence? Does science provide these answers? In many ways I think yes, but sometimes the answers suck. Does religion provide these answers? In many ways yes, but sometimes the answers get disproved.

Marco! Polo! Marco! Polo!

The issue is that people use the unproven, from both sides, to then oppress or attack one another in a manner that is not furthering the betterment of the human experience. People point to a unproven God to prove that SSM is going to destroy the planet. People point to unethical behavior among the religious to prove that unproven ethical models can be formed without this kind of structure.

The human experience is an experiment at a grand scale and life is the observer. I think it is important to play our parts to the best of our abilities by keeping our eyes and minds open to the whole of the experiment on both sides of the secular/believing divide because both are part of the process. But that isn't easy, if not really impossible.

Marco!