Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormons and Science


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

Did Charles Darwin live in the twentieth century, by the way?

I am gratified that you mentioned this, I thought of it when there were zero replies but I did not want be the one to state it, for fear of being attacked as usual for my supposed "anti-science" stand, by the pro-evolution majority on this board. I thought it rather ironic. :P
Link to comment

I've heard that evolution is taught at BYU. Openly. By professors who believe in it.

I've heard that the Maxwell Institute has published articles that assume the truth of evolution, even advocate it.

In what way can we draw conclusions about what the Church teaches (and "believes") from what is taught or published by BYU/MI?

The Church is pretty good at speaking for itself. It has an official magazine. It has a curriculum for use during Sunday Schools, as well as for teenagers in Seminary and college students and adults in Institute. Church leaders speak to the Church members at conferences, and then their words are published and distributed for Church members to study.

This would be irrelevant if "The Church" never addressed "science" or scientific issues. If that were the case, then it would be left up to others to fill in the blanks and define the Mormon attitude towards "science". But I'm not so sure that is the case.

Certainly, it's not a constant theme. But it is an issue that pops up occasionally in Church publications, and when it does, we should be very attentive to what is said. So, for your consideration, I submit these articles from official Church publications from which to understand the Church's attitude towards science, and the attitude it encourages its members to emulate:

The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview: How the Earth Came To Be

The Flood and the Tower of Babel (discusses "uniformitarianism")

On Having Faith and Thinking For Yourself

Things Not Seen

His Faith Began With Physics

Do we know how the earth

Link to comment

Of course its not plausible, as stated. Your question presumes that that the website made a serious charge, when it was obviously was engaged in hyperbole. The more relevant question is do they have a point.

I am just guessing here, but I think the authors of the website, may have had this in mind:

evolution.gif

If the Church

Link to comment

Oddly, Astrology is a relic of an earlier belief in the pre-existence.

It was believed that as the spirits descended from the highest heaven through the lower heavens containing the stars and planets, the spirits were affected by the various characteristics of those celestial bodies and therefore were born with predictable character features formed by their journey to earth.

Link to comment

Given the insufficiency of most views of causation, ever since Kant and Hume, it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not.

As usual, it tends to be all in the definitions of the terms.

Since you've missed that last 100 years of Modern Philosophy, here are a couple of survey papers to catch you up to the 21st cent.

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/scheines/causation.pdf

and

http://lapaul.org/papers/Introduction.pdf

And given more recent works, like this...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/than/toby/biff.pdf

It wouldn't take a terrible amount of work to show an arc like " Peep stones in a hat ----> Revelation " to be rendered impossible and labeled " Magical Thinking"

P.S- You should stop the vauge name dropping.

Link to comment

Actually if you read Jaybear's graph analytically, Analytics, you find there is no reason to believe that it is not.

That's because the graph didn't reflect any numbers about the uptake of "robust scientific theories," but merely the percentage of those who think evolution is the Explanation for Everything, a kind of biological Unified Field Theory.

I for one am gratified that Latter-day Saints are not all slumbering in the darwinian sleep.

Regards,

Pahoran

How did you go from " Evolution best explains human origins" on the graph to "Evolution is the explanation for everything" ??

Link to comment

It seems we have our first real example. So, Dr. Peterson, with the quoted statement by Droopy above, do you think 19th century beliefs are "strictly required"? Obviously not in obtaining a temple recommend or living the gospel, but try expressing a non literal interpretation and look at the reaction.

But LDS are not fundamentalists, and any claiming of literalism (which is what so bothered many of the early (and especially later) Church Fathers), is only the claiming of the historical veracity of divine interaction in human affairs, including "miraculous" interactions. We are also very much concerned with symbolism, as anyone who understands LDS doctrine would know were they to...understand LDS doctrine. It is as common in the Church to understand the term "day" as used in Genesis to mean an unspecified span of time, as it is to understand the use of the terms "forty days" not to necessarily mean forty actual days, but simply a long time, this being a literary device, and not necessarily a literal description.

The gospel is full of symbolism and literal witness of historical or visionary events as well as deep metaphysical concepts that can not be directly described or elucidated to the human mind, and which hence are given poetic imagery or symbolic structure. The Holy Spirit helps us to differentiate the literal from the symbolic, figurative, or allegorical.

Mormonism doesn't require 19th century science, but it sure makes being a member difficult if one doesn't embrace the beliefs and doctrines formulated from 19th century thinking.

Passing over the circular argument this statement implies, the gospel makes few, if any scientific claims about the world such that modern empirical science could state anything regarding them with any degree of credibility.

Oh, and Droopy, the church teaches a global flood, the "geographic dispersion" rationale is a concoction by you, of the church's position.

Many prophets and apostles have held this view, and that is all you can say. The question is the meaning of the term "global" from the perspective of those who experienced the event. Is it core doctrine? Well, that a catastrophic event occured, a "great flood" certainly is, and the "global" nature of that flood has long been attached to it. Is that necessarily core doctrine as well? I think in cases such as this, one returns immediately to one's testimony, and checks to see if that is in proper order. If one finds that it is, then one knows that the Church is true and the gospel it teaches is the gospel authorized by the Savior. One then begins to study it out in his/her mind, pray, and think carefully, and the first question one should probably ask in such cases is "If the flood were either local or global, what would the implications be for the truth of the Church?"

The answer here is, clearly, that so long as the flood event remains, and both the symbolism and literal experience of it tells us something of the Lord's dealings with his children, peripheral details can change.

Link to comment

So where, exaclty are these "19th century magic worldview" tribunal wards that are openly hostile to science and bring up gospel galileos on charges of heresy?

And we should never loose sight of the fact that the "magic world view", for which we have Mr. Quinn to thank, was never anything more than an intellectually snobbish snub aimed at members of the Church generally that has so stoked the egos of the Church's intellectually disaffected elites that it remains a arrow in their quiver to this very moment.

Such a simpleminded, superstitious, Forrest Gumpian lot we TBMs are.

Link to comment
Now you have made a caricature of my position. I don't believe that members would be openly hostile (well, excepting Droopy of course),

Excepting Droopy what? What would I be openly hostile to?

nor would a member be brought up on "heresy", but certain doctrines do lend themselves to scientific deconconstruction with the introduction of 21st century science.

I think you may mean "analysis". Foucault and science strange bedfellows make.

An example would be a literal God with a literal body fashioned in the shape of man (rather, man fashioned in the literal image of God). That doctrine was introduced before the knowledge of evolution and the long geological time frames of the earth.

Unless the evolutionary processes we know occurred within the strict confines of a template; software dictating the parameters and conditions uder which evolution would occur and determining its trajectory and focus.

Why...and how would God have a body that looked like man if evolution is random and not directed?

"Randomness" is nothing other than a term we use to describe causal interrelationships in nature that are far to complex to be measurable or quantifiable. Life on earth is mathematically impossible if only pure, random chance occurrences are considered the fundamental driving force. The whole idea of "climbing Mt. Improbable" is, I'm afraid, scientistic quasi-religion, not empirical science. This is all to say that, from a gospel perspective, nothing here on earth, biologically speaking, has not been known before, in some form(s), and does not exist now throughout the cosmos, in one form or another. Evolution is a means only, and hence, it need not (and does not, in a gospel context) explain the existence of life, but only its occurrence, and in that, LDS can, at our present state of scientific development, accept evolution as legitimate.

Do you think it would be difficult to be a member if you found a God of "Flesh and bone" to be a logical absurdity? I don't think disagreement with that core belief would serve the member well. Do you?

I don't believe that science has anything to say on this subject. For science, evolution is simply phenomena, and nothing more. The ultimate origin of the cosmos, and evolution as a phenomenon within that cosmos, is not open to scientific investigation. That is where the gospel comes in.

Link to comment
As for your "galactic view", I have never heard it taught or proposed in a church setting, but I do like it. It has promise. Problem is, I don't have four centuries to wait for answers, if there are answers that satisfy today.

This gives the concept of "deferred gratification" a new meaning. You know, its interesting that we were sent here to "grow up", to use a modern euphemism; to mature. Deferring many ultimate answers to the future, and even to our cosmic future, is a part of the plan, and we would be wise to choose patience when faced with so many profound mysteries rather than hold our breath until we turn blue and demand our answers NOW!!!

Link to comment
How did you go from " Evolution best explains human origins" on the graph to "Evolution is the explanation for everything" ??

Because it speaks of "origins" sloth. The ultimate "origin" of life on earth is assumed by Darwinian fundamentalists to inhere in evolution itself, but this is an axiom, not an empirical statement. Indeed, for LDS, evolution itself is only a feature of the cosmos, useful to certain ends, and having limited applicability. To many secular naturalists, it does indeed explain everything, from the origin of the universe, to organic life, to mind and consciousness, all human emotions, feelings, and mental states, to art, literature, religion, p;hilosophy and, by logical necessity, science.

This has long been known as "reductionism".

Link to comment

I've heard that evolution is taught at BYU. Openly. By professors who believe in it.

I've heard that the Maxwell Institute has published articles that assume the truth of evolution, even advocate it.

Awesome, I'm so glad that the allegation that Mormonism requires "that members in good standing adhere to a strict 19th century magic-based worldview" has been shown to not be literally true! I'm also hoping somebody can help me debunk a very disturbing essay I've recently come across that advocates canablism as a solution to hunger.

Link to comment

Since you've missed that last 100 years of Modern Philosophy, here are a couple of survey papers to catch you up to the 21st cent.

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/scheines/causation.pdf

and

http://lapaul.org/papers/Introduction.pdf

And given more recent works, like this...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/than/toby/biff.pdf

It wouldn't take a terrible amount of work to show an arc like " Peep stones in a hat ----> Revelation " to be rendered impossible and labeled " Magical Thinking"

P.S- You should stop the vauge name dropping.

:P I love it! I'll get back to you.

Edit: Today's name drop: I knew David Lewis at UCLA and he was a very weird dude. Always wore the same brown sweater. There. That proves I'm cool.

Link to comment

Our critics have often substituted turning a phrase for honest thinking. At BYU years ago, the sign stating, "The world is our campus" was routinely changed to "The campus is our world." And Steve Benson is fond of quipping about the three commandments to all later-day saints: "Pray, pay and obey!"

Having known and read the writings of a number of our bitter foes, all I can say is that it's one of their only true gleeful endeavors. They so enjoy each other's witticisms that to deprive them of them would be petty on our parts.

Throw 'em a bone every now and again. It's one of the few things they really take pride in.

.

Link to comment

rofl.gif I love it! I'll get back to you.

Edit: Today's name drop: I knew David Lewis at UCLA and he was a very weird dude. Always wore the same brown sweater. There. That proves I'm cool.

Good. I'm pretty convinced you can't actually discuss Philosophy outside of soundbytes and look forward to actually seeing you deal with Casual Models in some kind of manner that isn't, "Read XXX [insert smilely here] "

Link to comment

I've heard that evolution is taught at BYU. Openly. By professors who believe in it.

I've heard that the Maxwell Institute has published articles that assume the truth of evolution, even advocate it.

So it sounds like that BYU has accepted the scholarship of the secular academic community and allows it's teaching in it's academic ciriculum. Do you think the same acceptance of LDS scholarship on the historicity and antiquity of the BOM claim will soon or ever be accepted by the secular academic community in the same way BYU has accepted the concept of teaching evolution?

Link to comment

So it sounds like that BYU has accepted the scholarship of the secular academic community and allows it's teaching in it's academic ciriculum.

Well, certain departments at BYU have. I wouldn't go so far as to presume that the science professors were speaking for everybody when it comes to the subject of organic evolution.

Link to comment

Good. I'm pretty convinced you can't actually discuss Philosophy outside of soundbytes and look forward to actually seeing you deal with Casual Models in some kind of manner that isn't, "Read XXX [insert smilely here] "

Well I will be glad to discuss anything you like as long as it is not a derailment, or conforms to the rules of the forum as far as topics are concerned, and is relevant to what interests me, but I think you are blowing smoke.

I admit I am not an expert in this area of philosophy, and you may know your statistics, but I don't think you know your philosophy. I could be wrong of course.

The three articles you linked include a good summary of current status of the philosophy of causation, including the first article which is a historical view of the trends, the second article which is an analysis of Lewis' theory on counterfactuals, and the third attempts to link statistical Bayesian networks to more philosophical causal theories.

Let me say first that I am not familiar with Bayesian networks but I do have some acquaintance with the concepts involved, enough I think to properly categorize what they attempt to achieve.

I am familiar with Lewis and his views on counterfactuals, but for purposes of this thread, I think we can say that Lewis doesn't "solve" the issue of causation by any means, as is apparent by the fact that the "Biff" article is about resolving some of Lewis' problem areas. But I found the summary of the contemporary history of the problem most telling.

You really should read your sources before posting them, and making smart-alecky statements.

The conclusion of the article you gave me, and a portion before the conclusion, includes this: (page 14, 15)(emphasis added)

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/scheines/causation.pdf

A deeper puzzle along these same lines arises from quantum mechanics. In a famous

thought experiment, Einstein, Podolosky, and Rosen consider a coupled system of

quantum particles that are separated gently and allowed to diverge. Each particle is in

superposition, that is, it has no definite spin until it is measured. Bell

Link to comment

You really should read your sources before posting them, and making smart-alecky statements.

Heh. There is nothing in any of my posts that even hint at the prospect of presenting a comprehensive model of Causation and I'm not sure where you manufactured that notion. The problem must be on my end, so let me take a crack at making myself clear...

Given the insufficiency of most views of causation, ever since Kant and Hume, it is hard to distinguish what is "magical thinking" and what is not.

This sentence can be broken down into two statements

A: Most models of causation are insufficient.

B: It is hard to distinguish Magical Thinking in those models

A is not not controversial and I would even go farther and say all models of causation are insuffcient. I didn't mention,"...ever since Kant and Hume..." because the statement is superfluous.

B is demonstrably false. The concept of "Magical Thinking" carries a number conotations that are expressed well by the all mighty Wikipedia;

In anthropology, psychology, and cognitive science, magical thinking is causal reasoning that often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation.

Even the medical definition seems to say a similiar thing;

1. irrational belief that one can bring about a circumstance or event by thinking about it or wishing for it; normal in preschool children, it also occurs in schizophrenia.

These two quotes both hit a similiar theme in metaphysical jargon...

...philosophers interested in analysing causal processes have tended to see the chief task to be to distinguish causal processes such as atoms decaying and billiard balls moving across the table from pseudo processes such as moving shadows and spots of light.

When it comes to models of causation, the only coherent way to understanding what is implied by magical thinking, is with the notion that it is a mistake in correlation and causation, or in other terms, pseudo processes. So following the link to the paper that you feel I didn't read before posting, we see this on the very first page;

Third, we know that in many cases one thing can occur regularly before another, and

thus appear to be related as cause and effect, but are in fact effects of a common cause, a

phenomenon we will call spurious causation. For example, flashes of lightning appear

just before and seem to cause the thunderclaps that follow them, but in reality both are

effects of a common cause: the superheating of air molecules from the massive static

electric discharge between the earth and the atmosphere. A good theory of causation

ought to successfully separate cases of real from spurious causation.

So in other words, any serious model of causation thats going to appear in journals and books, is going to have a method of dealing with spurious causation (pseudo processes or magical thinking).

Link to comment

My above post also links in with the OP. Where Dan states...

I would like to invite anybody interested to take a look at the relevant testimonies and bios (as I write, thirty-nine testimonies and bios currently appear on the site, altogether, listed on two pages) at "Mormon Scholars Testify" and ask themselves whether the anti-Mormon parody claim seems plausible:

Take for example Joseph Smith placing two stones in a hat to receive some sort of spiritual ability to understand the gold plates and read them aloud, how could this fit into a coherent model of causation that could satisfy the criteria mentioned the articles above? Can you imagine trying to put that into a neuron or diagram model? There are plenty sticks in the Mormon metaphysical mud.

Link to comment

I've heard that evolution is taught at BYU. Openly. By professors who believe in it.

I was taught evolution at BYU in the 1970's. My Biology teacher even stated he told the G.A. who interviewed him he would be teaching evolution, and the G.A. did not ask him not to.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...