Does Science Have All The Answers?

[Arc]

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.

My original post stated that some Mormon teachings are in direct conflict with science. You claimed that no conflict existed between Mormonism and science, and so I provided you with an example of a clear conflict.

Your response constituted an admission that Mormon teachings and science may be in conflict now, but you believe that someday they will not be in conflict.

You are invoking the same logic employed by Deborah.

Based on your response, it would seem in your worldview limited abilities in science and logic can be offset by ability in magical thinking.

[cdowis]

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

This is a myth.

Take a look at entangled electrons. Human beings are incapable of communicating FTL, but a data point can. An electron can detect the state of its partner across the universe instantaneously.

There is much to be discovered at the quantum level, so your statement is very Newtonian. You are an artifact from the past century.

[Arc]

arc:

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

Thanks for the answer. It doesn't matter where heaven is, or even if heaven exists. According to Mormon teachings, God resides near a star named Kolob and answers prayers in less than 8.4 years. (Othewise invocations would be a waste of time.) These two beliefs, taken together, cannot be reconciled with relativity and the teaching that God has a body comprised of matter (or spirit).

[Honorentheos]

This is a myth.

Take a look at entangled electrons. Human beings are incapable of communicating FTL, but a data point can. An electron can detect the state of its partner across the universe instantaneously.

There is much to be discovered at the quantum level, so your statement is very Newtonian.

True. The nature of entangled electrons is a fascinating and potentially promising matter for science as electrons are one of those particles we actually have some experience with. I don't know that it provides much promise for clarifying theological matters unless one takes a very literal view of the love of God/light/pure spirit being the same in which case one can go down a mighty deep rabbit hole philosophically trying to tie this together with something meaningful and applicable. But it shows we don't know much and even in things where we think we have it figured out, we can be surprised.

But along these lines, I really like the discussion at the end of that video I posted yesterday in the mind-intelligence thread. The last two people who speak represent the view of a person who felt that scientific minds were being too dismissive of theology and it's premises. The lady who responds after is, IMO, brilliant in her assessment of the situation and why it remains such a contested matter. If there is overlap between the two realms that are in dispute, one has to ask why this is so - is science claiming property that it has no hold over, or is religion unwilling to relinquish hold over a belief that has become outgrown?

Jump to 1:41:00

I'm sure there is a little of both. But when something shows up that is unexpected in an experimental condition there are generally few who will simply refuse to acknowledge the required change in views among active, interested secular parties. There will always be hold-outs, but the trend is to accept and seek to understand. Then sell it to the government to make a buck off of it.

Religion, on the other hand, has a few pre-conditions that are inviolate. Change is hard and frequently requires generational turn-over to take place or hardcore fundamentalism to deny the need to change.

[Arc]

This is a myth.

Take a look at entangled electrons. Human beings are incapable of communicating FTL, but a data point can. An electron can detect the state of its partner across the universe instantaneously.

There is much to be discovered at the quantum level, so your statement is very Newtonian. You are an artifact from the past century.

I may be old, but not that old. And you are almost right (but not quite).

The "information" about the spin state of a particle such as an electron or a photon that is "communicated" between one particle and its entangled partner is "quantum information" not "classical information" (or, in fact, useful information).

You are correct that is possible to entangle two particles in terms of their relative spin states, and later determine that the states are later complementary in every case, no matter which particle spin state is first observed, and no matter howfar the particles are apart when the determination is made. However, it is not possible (theoretically or practically) to use this quantum entanglement to transfer classical or useful information (including prayer) at speeds faster than that of light light.

The relevant terms are "classical information channel" and "quantum information channel

[notHagoth7]

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.

Entanglement.

Some believe it can be explained by retrocausality - which potentially ties into something you say a bit later.

"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.

A combination of #2 and #3 could be correct if, as some are suggesting, our consciousness actually exists at the edge of the universe, and this reality is merely a projection, an experience, from which we learn. Not terribly different from an avatar in a SIM environment.

"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.

In other words, that there are better versions of you out there. And worse versions of you.

"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.

Celtic tradition once referred to this as "being away" (where one's true self is literally in a different realm). A condition from which some never returned. But to which some did - sometimes after several years.

"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."

Some believe those dimensions can be bridged/experienced at will.

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!

POLO!

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 01 November 2009 - 12:34 PM, said:

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.

My original post stated that some Mormon teachings are in direct conflict with science. You claimed that no conflict existed between Mormonism and science, and so I provided you with an example of a clear conflict.

Your response constituted an admission that Mormon teachings and science may be in conflict now, but you believe that someday they will not be in conflict.

You are invoking the same logic employed by Deborah.

Based on your response, it would seem in your worldview limited abilities in science and logic can be offset by ability in magical thinking.

You have pronounced a falsehood. I see no conflict and I and others here of various different levels of agreement with the church have shown how your charges are empty and uneducated lacking even a basic understanding of science. I provided counterpoints that were specific. You provided no counterpoint, indeed you seem amazingly silent in regard to the physics professors from MIT and UT who counter your view that such theories were "science fiction". And then I have shown the almost empty headed illogic of believing that there can be no further development of science, based on you posts. It appears that you not I have the credibility problem here.

There is no conflict between science and the doctrine of my church. The only conflict I see here is between you and common sense. I hope you make the right choices in the future.

[Deborah]

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?

Well, yes, that too. But the point is science doesn't have all the answers and is continually discovering new frontiers. You are the one who is inconsistent in putting limitations on science which I as a Mormon don't.

[Honorentheos]

POLO!

A combination of #2 and #3 could be correct if, as some are suggesting, our consciousness actually exists at the edge of the universe, and this reality is merely a projection, an experience, from which we learn. Not terribly different from an avatar in a SIM environment.

Personally I would not oppose this view if it can take into account all of the evidence. I'm going to bracket in this following quote you made and then respond to the whole with basically a question, though a long round-a-bout one -

In other words, that there are better versions of you out there. And worse versions of you.

All of the ideas above seem interesting but I am unsure how you could demonstrate that a continuous sense of self - or an individual identity - is maintained in these models?

For example, can you as you reach out into any of the infinite multi-verses proposed and find yourself as you? If so, I am very interested in how you perceive this as I can not. If not, are these versions of you actually you? Or just splinters of something else that have taken on a similar form that might be approximately like "you" in this multi-verse that you and I are sharing our experience within? And if this is the case, when they all come back together will they be separate from everything else in someway that will then be "you" or something else entirely?

We had a short discussion on identity in another thread a while back and I think it left more questions than it provided answers. Examples that arose included family members who suffered strokes, had Alzheimer's, or were otherwise injured in some manner that changed them and separated them from their past. It seemed in these conditions a person's continued identity was dependant on someone else to hold onto but even then it could not be shared with the person.

Likewise, a person who had changed substantially from their youth to today surprised their old friends by who they had become. The questions asked included if this old person would make the same decisions as the new person, act the same in the same situation, or otherwise share this identity in a recognizable manner? It seems that our continued sense of self is dependant on continuity and memory - otherwise it is not valid to say we are the same person we always have been since birth. There are a lot of things that make up this (IMO) false sense of continued self. When we project it out beyond birth or after death, we begin to move beyond physics and into metaphysics.

And this is where I think most LDS views of the afterlife come in conflict with actual scientific understanding. Time can not exist independent of matter, yet matter has a predicted and supported beginning in the big bang. Atleast as matter we can relate to. The singularity of the big bang did contain all we call matter today, as well as all of the forces though not as the four major separate forces, as well as energy, etc. It was something "other" and we can not understand it.

It becomes tempting to take this lack of understanding and project the LDS narrative on it, but I think this does a disservice to the faith as well as the underlying science. JS seems to have held a very Newtonian view of the universe (which makes sense given it was the best view around at the time) and composed a theology that took this and made it into an egalitarian theology where all were the children of God. This theology evolved over time, but well suited the American Frontier of the 1800's. The theology has since evolved more, but it is nowhere near being esoteric enough to resemble the eastern religious views of the universal Tao from out of which all things sprang. The LDS view of eternity IS best represented by the mirror opposed to a mirror.

Anyway, #1 is a part of modern science and can not be dismissed. When there is no change, there is no time. When there is change, or relationships, there is time. Time is not separate nor can it be separated under the theory of relativity from the other relationships that make up the whole of space-time.

[cdowis]

I may be old, but not that old. And you are almost right (but not quite).

The "information" about the spin state of a particle such as an electron or a photon that is "communicated" between one particle and its entangled partner is "quantum information" not "classical information" (or, in fact, useful information).

You are correct that is possible to entangle two particles in terms of their relative spin states, and later determine that the states are later complementary in every case, no matter which particle spin state is first observed, and no matter howfar the particles are apart when the determination is made. However, it is not possible (theoretically or practically) to use this quantum entanglement to transfer classical or useful information (including prayer) at speeds faster than that of light light.

The relevant terms are "classical information channel" and "quantum information channel

[Honorentheos]

While the data transfer from entangled pairs may not give us the ability to communicate, the ****mechanism** may be the means that Deity can communicate across the universe, instantaneously.

This is an interesting aspect of religious belief that I find unfortunate. That being that the most unsubstantiated claim (i.e. - how God answers prayers) becomes parasitic of any scientific data that it can suck nutrients out of.

Yet this is almost always a case of picking and choosing based on a theological narrative that by definition lies outside of the purview of science to prove or disprove.

Again, this may be how God communicates with people or hears prayers. But once one begins to accept quantum mechanics as a viable explanation for how things work, one really is being dishonest if one then discards the non-deterministic nature of quantum change and it's apparent randomness. Einstein was a genius and it appalled him to see such chaotic behavior in the universe. While what he meant by "God" is misunderstood by many a theist and atheist alike, his famous quote that "God does not play dice" is spot on. You lose something in the theological ability to have faith in a God that is compatible with the quantum universe.

Fortunately, none of us really understand quantum mechanics so this may be a non-issue, too.

[Honorentheos]

I see no conflict ...

Did you really need to say anything else?

[Arc]

Well, yes, that too. But the point is science doesn't have all the answers and is continually discovering new frontiers. You are the one who is inconsistent in putting limitations on science which I as a Mormon don't.

Deborah,

Thanks for being honest about what you said. At least you have integrity to stand behind your statements instead of dodging, obfuscating, and releasing smoke to cover your retreat.

You are right that science does not have all of the answers. I do not claim that it does, and I am not putting limitations on science. I am explaining some of the things science knows to an extremely high probability, and showing how this knowledge conflicts in many instances, with what Mormonism teaches.

Anyway, I guess its readily apparent why you are a Mormon and I am a scientist.

[Jeff K.]

Did you really need to say anything else?

Why yes, I did need to say more.

Science and religion really should not be in conflict, in fact from what I have seen they never have been in conflict. Both come from the same source. Both fulfill distinct roles that sometimes overlapp but are never in conflict.

[Honorentheos]

Science and religion really should not be in conflict, in fact from what I have seen they never have been in conflict. Both come from the same source. Both fulfill distinct roles that sometimes overlapp but are never in conflict.

This is a strange statement in that it all becomes a matter of scale, and that scale can vary widely.

When we say science, what do we mean? When we say religion, are we being all inclusive of all religious belief or just LDS belief?

If the later, could you explain how a physical, material God is comparible with the points I made in the other posts above? Or did you mean something else?

Not seeing the conflict is honest. After that, why you don't see a conflict becomes a matter of debate and my view is that you "don't see the conflict", not that there isn't one.

[thesometimesaint]

arc:

Heaven does not need to within any number of light years. For all we know it could be right here in a parallel overlapping universe. I'm not saying it is. The Church has no doctrine on distances from Heaven. You are laboring under a misconception to posit ANY distance.

[Honorentheos]

For all we know it could be right here in a parallel overlapping universe. I'm not saying it is.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to as parasitic of science as well. Parallel universe? How do you reconcile this with the rest of the body of science? When people point to string theory and multiple dimensions, all that I can think is how little they seem to understand this means about what happens at this level of theory regarding the dimensional relationship of one to another.

Is it possible? Sure. But is it reconcilable with LDS theology? Not if this theology requires the continuation of an eternal INDIVIDUAL identity, a physical being that exists outside of time, or offers any means of making this actually anything more than a science fiction attempt at maintaining ones belief in other matters that lie outside of the view of science. The god that moves through these means and exists in these dimensions is not the one you are praying to, nor is it conceivable that the term "in the image of God" can be anything but poetic or figurative as the image of this god does not seem to be able to be preserved in the same material way our "image" is composed. There would have to be a major paradigm shift in your view of what God actually is for this to be reasonable.

[notHagoth7]

All of the ideas above seem interesting but I am unsure how you could demonstrate that a continuous sense of self - or an individual identity - is maintained in these models?

Here's a tentative framework that I've been bumping up against a few passages. I hope no one runs w/any of this, or claims I'm saying it must be accurate - because it's simply one of several frameworks I happen to be testing out at the moment. (I end up discarding a number of frameworks, so don't hold me to this one.)

1) The Son was the express image of the Father. Some have said you can't tell the two apart, until one announces the other as the Son.

2) Two entities. Yet they are one.

3) The Son said he did nothing but what he saw his Father do.

Plug all three of those into the above, and you'll see there is potential alignment.

Doesn't make it true/reliable. Just means it matches a few of the data points as a starting point for discussion.

And I haven't yet found another framework that helps explain those three data points.

For example, can you as you reach out into any of the infinite multi-verses proposed and find yourself as you?

A number of people claim to have done just that. I won't give some of the terms for that "reaching out" here in a public setting, lest that be seen as an endorsement of the idea - an idea I'm still trying to assess.

If not, are these versions of you actually you?

Probably not. Separate identities. Separate realities. If there's any validity to it, they might be potential allies/peers, mentors, or students.

Or just splinters of something else that have taken on a similar form that might be approximately like "you" in this multi-verse that you and I are sharing our experience within?

I honestly don't know.

And if this is the case, when they all come back together will they be separate from everything else in someway that will then be "you" or something else entirely?

No idea. Don't know if that's the intent or not. (If any of this is valid.)

It seemed in these conditions a person's continued identity was dependant on someone else to hold onto but even then it could not be shared with the person.

You're probably hinting at something here that I haven't quite yet grasped. Please extrapolate/elaborate a bit more.

The questions asked included if this old person would make the same decisions as the new person, act the same in the same situation, or otherwise share this identity in a recognizable manner? It seems that our continued sense of self is dependant on continuity and memory - otherwise it is not valid to say we are the same person we always have been since birth.

Which may well form the purpose of the veil/forgeting. Hopefully none of us are the same person today as we were five years ago. If we are, we haven't progressed. One of my favorite anonymous quotes: "You'll be the same person five years from now as you are today except for the books you read and the people you associate with."

There are a lot of things that make up this (IMO) false sense of continued self. When we project it out beyond birth or after death, we begin to move beyond physics and into metaphysics.

As much as I enjoy physics, I think the potential meaning/implications behind physics are much more interesting than physics itself.

[cont'd]

[notHagoth7]

[cont'd reply to Honorentheos]

And this is where I think most LDS views of the afterlife come in conflict with actual scientific understanding. Time can not exist independent of matter, yet matter has a predicted and supported beginning in the big bang. Atleast as matter we can relate to.

Unless what we call matter is merely an expression, an outgrowth, a condensation of thought (faith/energy/power, if you will).

Physicists themselves are seeing the lines blur between matter and energy, photons and waves, etc.

It becomes tempting to take this lack of understanding and project the LDS narrative on it, but I think this does a disservice to the faith as well as the underlying science. JS seems to have held a very Newtonian view of the universe (which makes sense given it was the best view around at the time)

In college physics, I was stunned at how much overlap there was between theoretical physics that postdated Joseph (Einstein, et. al) and a number of passages in the D&C. That whole class was a profound experience for me. So I think Joseph goes far beyond Newton.

However, I think it would be incomplete to examine physics only from that lens. So I agree that it could be a disservice to constrain science to that one perspective. And Joseph himself said we are also to look elsewhere for truths.

This theology evolved over time, but well suited the American Frontier of the 1800's. The theology has since evolved more, but it is nowhere near being esoteric enough to resemble the eastern religious views of the universal Tao from out of which all things sprang. The LDS view of eternity IS best represented by the mirror opposed to a mirror.

And being perhaps too curious for my own good, I'm interested in seeing behind the mirror.

You'd probably enjoy The Tao of Physics. It's been a fascinating read so far.

Anyway, #1 is a part of modern science and can not be dismissed. When there is no change, there is no time. When there is change, or relationships, there is time. Time is not separate nor can it be separated under the theory of relativity from the other relationships that make up the whole of space-time.

I'm reading a second book on that very topic - the nature of time. It refers to Boltzmann's work - that time is an expression of entropy.

Which begs the question - in a state where entropy/decay was slowed or stopped, what becomes of time? (Such a question aligns quite well with a number of things we're told elsewhere.)

[Jeff K.]

This is a strange statement in that it all becomes a matter of scale, and that scale can vary widely.

When we say science, what do we mean? When we say religion, are we being all inclusive of all religious belief or just LDS belief?

If the later, could you explain how a physical, material God is comparible with the points I made in the other posts above? Or did you mean something else?

Not seeing the conflict is honest. After that, why you don't see a conflict becomes a matter of debate and my view is that you "don't see the conflict", not that there isn't one.

It is really fairly simple.

To me science is the knowledge of how the universe works and interacts. If this universe were built by a God, then He of course knows the rules and is aware.

Now does man know all the rules? No.

If we don't know all the rules, then how do we know if a rule is being broken or in conflict with a doctrine? The arrogance is presuming that a knowledge of all the rules presently exists and therefore certain things cannot happen. We are a long long way from knowing most of the rules, or even a large portion of the rules, so when one believes they observe conflict, they are in effect saying they do not know all the science that is there.

[Jeff K.]

Allow me to add:

I know of no doctrine in our church that conflicts with science, and no scientific proof that conflicts with our doctrine.

[Honorentheos]

Unless what we call matter is merely an expression, an outgrowth, a condensation of thought (faith/energy/power, if you will).

Physicists themselves are seeing the lines blur between matter and energy, photons and waves, etc.

This is an interesting thought as it is certainly in the direction theoretical physics is moving. But can we extend these ideas out into a view of a physical, resurrected god? Why a need for a resurrection of a material body if it turns out this was actually an illusion?

Like you, what lies behind the mirror interests me as well. But I am not sure that when we take what we know now and try and fit it over the theology of JS, we find a good fit. One can make it work if one takes a sleeve here, a collar there. But the whole is not really that compatible. One can potentially run too far and ending up outside of the faith. Or, more likely, one's practical faith becomes separated from one's theological grounding at it's deepest levels.

At what point does one come to the conclusion that it is really, really dark - this glass we see through and accept that when we make such bold statements as religion tends to make we are overstepping the bounds of credulity? It is just as dangerous to take a religious view of secular knowledge, as I think the OP was hinting at, but this is nothing but human nature in both cases.

For example, my renewed interest in this board was raised about the time the SSM debate started flaring up. Mostly, this was because I lacked the voice to speak out in a non-internet forum against what I see as a modern revisitation of the worst that religion has to offer the world. We could sit and discuss the evidence for and against biological SSA, jurisprudence and the direction of the American Experiment, and if it is more moral to encourage people to marry within their nature than exclude them to acts of what you may consider immoral because there is no other option.

But in the end, it will always come down to one thing - the belief that the LDS church has a unique view of the truth and this requires actions of a certain kind. And this is completely unscientific. I've seen scientific confabulations used to justify these views, but never seen them stand up.

I feel this is a very real, with real world consequences, issue. And in the past year or more my observation is that the religious mind will be prejudiced to the evidence that SSM may not be purely immoral and that it may be the best step we can take as a nation to both ensure justice as well as improve the moral climate of our country. In some cases, these discussions has resulted in people coming to the conclusion that since they "know" God is just and even if SSA and homosexuality are biological, the default position of the religious belief fails to allow for a reassessment of what an appropriate action may be in this political setting.

We need to see behind the looking glass. Because it is dark, and not because we want to see how it fits in with what we think we know is behind it. We need to keep our eyes open to the entire view, and not just the parts we want to look at. We need to see clouds for clouds and not pretend because we can see rabbits in their shapes that there are rabbits running across the sky.

We need to take personal responsibility for our beliefs and their resulting actions. Again - Personal, individual responsibility for our views and actions. When we perpetuate myths without just cause, can we claim individual responsibility and ownership? Or is our claim to having faith a way of shrugging off that responsibility?

I think it is.

[Honorentheos]

It is really fairly simple.

To me science is the knowledge of how the universe works and interacts. If this universe were built by a God, then He of course knows the rules and is aware.

Now does man know all the rules? No.

If we don't know all the rules, then how do we know if a rule is being broken or in conflict with a doctrine? The arrogance is presuming that a knowledge of all the rules presently exists and therefore certain things cannot happen. We are a long long way from knowing most of the rules, or even a large portion of the rules, so when one believes they observe conflict, they are in effect saying they do not know all the science that is there.

We really could use a smilie with a guy dodging a dodgeball.

Science, by your definition, is not science but your religion. Knowledge gained through secular means, then, can not create conflict with your views or you simply say it isn't science.

Again, it was most honest to simply say you just don't see any conflicts.

[Jeff K.]

No, quite the opposite. In you I see someone creating a false dichotomy. From your writings it would appear that unless science conflicts with religion it cannot be science. I find that to be less than honest.

Science tells us how the universe works.

Science, by your definition, is not science but your religion. Knowledge gained through secular means, then, can not create conflict with your views or you simply say it isn't science.

Your statement is ridiculous since you produce no example of something within science I would find in conflict with doctrine. It also implies the arrogance of someone who either believes all science is known and therefore no presumed present doctrine can be resolved or that such conflicts must exist in order for science to exist. Both are opinions.

So show me the science that conflicts with my doctrine.

[Honorentheos]

No, quite the opposite. In you I see someone creating a false dichotomy. From your writings it would appear that unless science conflicts with religion it cannot be science. I find that to be less than honest.

Oh?

Science tells us how the universe works.

Sure. As best as it can and to the best extent our current knowledge allows. We agree.

Your statement is ridiculous since you produce no example of something within science I would find in conflict with doctrine. It also implies the arrogance of someone who either believes all science is known and therefore no presumed present doctrine can be resolved or that such conflicts must exist in order for science to exist. Both are opinions.

So show me the science that conflicts with my doctrine.

oohhh this is a tricky one. Man I wish I had something to point to (POST 87 and 100) that Jeff K. could take the time to read, understand, and respond to that is in conflict with a key tenant of LDS belief. If only somewhere in this thread I had done so this would be so easy. The whole bleeding discussion with notHagoth7

Guess you got me.