Faith Vs. Science

[Jeff K.]

Isaac Newton would have never made it beyond the door if he were looking for a job and foxtrot were hiring.

Chuckle... Foxtrot wouldn't make it into the front door of most businesses today if they knew his proclivity for creating liability situations. His prejudicial stance towards anyone that does not follow his belief system would lead to many many lawsuits, and frankly there is a moral ethos that is unappealing to fair minded individuals. I had no prejudicial feeling towards atheists which I often hired in my line of work, and I did not care because it is ethically wrong to refuse someone employment because of their personal religous beliefs. So on two counts, Isaac Newton would have made it through the door, but Foxtrot? If he were honest with his employers in how he would attempt to manage and hire, he would not have been given consideration, the guy is just too far out there.

[WalkerW]

Well, we all know that the religionists are not a logical race: they chop down trees for tables, when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on!

[Daniel Peterson]

"Agenda" is a well-known "weasel word," used frequently in politics in order to impart a sinister connotation to the intent of one's opponents.

It's also a perfectly legitimate word, with perfectly legitimate uses.

We, as representatives of Christ, should be above that sort of rhetoric.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with such rhetoric, in its place. But the fact remains that I was not using the word in that sense.

I resent your apparent continued insistence, notwithstanding my denial, that I was using it in a subchristian way to illicitly impugn the integrity of anybody on this board.

I fully expect such nonsense from my anti- and ex-Mormon critics, for whom it's an unshakable article of faith that I'm disingenuous and mean-spirited. But to get it from my own "side" is more than a little discouraging. A couple of experiences of this type were the immediate catalysts (though not the only reasons) that led me to sharply curtail my participation here.

To many scientists and other rationalists, the term "religious thinker" is, sorry to say, somewhat of an oxymoron.

Contemptuous silliness, nothing more.

Not worth a rebuttal.

Your expressed discomfort with "unfounded belief" as a definition of religious faith does make it an any less accurate and useful definition.

I feel no "discomfort" with the pseudo-definition. I simply reject it as baseless and question-begging.

But you're entirely correct in saying that my rejection of it doesn't make it inaccurate and useless for serious discourse. Those are intrinsic qualities that it possesses on its own, irrespective of my response to it.

[WalkerW]

A worthwhile article:

Elaine Howard Ecklund, "What Scientists Think About Religion," The Huffington Post (June 28, 2010). She published her findings through Oxford: Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (2010).

[Walden]

That is correct. Our doctrine is not incompatible with science, and not one doctrine we hold is against any known scientific knowledge.

A belief in the literal events of the history of the Americas as told in the Book of Mormon is at least one tenet that goes against the standard, accepted scientific knowledge that is generally accepted in the scientific world.

[WalkerW]

A belief in the literal events of the history of the Americas as told in the Book of Mormon is at least one tenet that goes against the standard, accepted scientific knowledge that is generally accepted in the scientific world.

Brant Gardner has an excellent post on this very subject.

[sunstoned]

A belief in the literal events of the history of the Americas as told in the Book of Mormon is at least one tenet that goes against the standard, accepted scientific knowledge that is generally accepted in the scientific world.

I believe that the Tower of Babel story and the world wide flood belief would not find much traction in scientific circles today. Both myths pose problems for literal thinking LDS, as these events are accepted Mormon doctrine.

[WalkerW]

I believe that the Tower of Babel story and the world wide flood belief would not find much traction in scientific circles today. Both myths pose problems for literal thinking LDS, as these events are accepted Mormon doctrine.

I would agree. I don't take them literally, much like I don't take Genesis to be ultraliteral.

[Walden]

Brant Gardner has an excellent post on this very subject.

That's an interesting post that someone else on here had directed me to before.

Yes I am aware that a believing mormon can make a case for his belief in the events of the Book of Mormon. How scientific that case is, well, that's debatable.

However, my post was referring to what is considered generally accepted knowledge in the science world. Yes, there are LDS scholars, LDS archeologists, and maybe even a few non-LDS science folks who can make some connections between ancient America and the events of the Book of Mormon.

However, they are vastly and overwhelmingly outnumbered by the scientific community who agree that there is no evidence for the events as told in the Book of Mormon. Thus, I stand by my argument against Jeff K's statement that "not one doctrine we hold is against any known scientific knowledge."

[Jeff K.]

I believe that the Tower of Babel story and the world wide flood belief would not find much traction in scientific circles today. Both myths pose problems for literal thinking LDS, as these events are accepted Mormon doctrine.

Do not conflate the idea of literal and symbolic interpretation with the idea that doctrine has dictated or delineated the differences between symbolic and literal interpretation, it hasn't.

[Jeff K.]

That's an interesting post that someone else on here had directed me to before.

Yes I am aware that a believing mormon can make a case for his belief in the events of the Book of Mormon. How scientific that case is, well, that's debatable.

However, my post was referring to what is considered generally accepted knowledge in the science world. Yes, there are LDS scholars, LDS archeologists, and maybe even a few non-LDS science folks who can make some connections between ancient America and the events of the Book of Mormon.

However, they are vastly and overwhelmingly outnumbered by the scientific community who agree that there is no evidence for the events as told in the Book of Mormon. Thus, I stand by my argument against Jeff K's statement that "not one doctrine we hold is against any known scientific knowledge."

Generally accepted? By whom? The doctrine doesn't speak to it. So really all you are doing is stating "Some Mormons take some things literally and some Mormons take some things symbolicallyl and therefore I get to choose at the greatest disadvantage and call it doctrine for your church." That isn't rational by any means.

The scientific community has not really stated that the Book of Mormon is false. If you care to present a peer reviewed document that is not in dispute I will be happy to read it. Otherwise it really is simply an unproven hypothesis one way or the other.

[WalkerW]

That's an interesting post that someone else on here had directed me to before.

Yes I am aware that a believing mormon can make a case for his belief in the events of the Book of Mormon. How scientific that case is, well, that's debatable.

However, my post was referring to what is considered generally accepted knowledge in the science world. Yes, there are LDS scholars, LDS archeologists, and maybe even a few non-LDS science folks who can make some connections between ancient America and the events of the Book of Mormon.

However, they are vastly and overwhelmingly outnumbered by the scientific community who agree that there is no evidence for the events as told in the Book of Mormon. Thus, I stand by my argument against Jeff K's statement that "not one doctrine we hold is against any known scientific knowledge."

Terryl Givens dedicated a section of his book By the Hand of Mormon (Oxford, 2002) to this very claim. He points out that the majority of the scientific community don't even bother with the Book of Mormon. Many have not taken the time to study the book itself indepth. But this is about overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not overwhelming opinion. In order to know if there is evidence, one would have to know both the scientific findings and the claims of the book itself.

There is no scientific consensus that I love to play guitar, but that's because most scientists don't even know who I am.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is no scientific consensus that I love to play guitar,....

Oh yeah? (Turns on amp and bangs out a A/D5 chord!!)

[Jeff K.]

I played a guitar once. Elementary school, we were talking musical instruments. I was the one that struck a dissonant chord (played by my best friend).

[Monster]

Sure they can coexist as long as religion does not try and contradict known facts or ignore uncomfortable observations about history and the universe. I think the real question is can faith override science? Only for the uniformed.

[semlogo]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with such rhetoric, in its place.

You are, of course, at liberty to use whatever rhetoric that pleases you.

Have a good day.

[Deborah]

Sure they can coexist as long as religion does not try and contradict known facts or ignore uncomfortable observations about history and the universe.

Or how about science not thinking that it has the only answers, even when there are big gaps of knowledge or things that can't be explained.

[Jaybear]

Generally accepted? By whom? The doctrine doesn't speak to it. So really all you are doing is stating "Some Mormons take some things literally and some Mormons take some things symbolicallyl and therefore I get to choose at the greatest disadvantage and call it doctrine for your church." That isn't rational by any means.

The scientific community has not really stated that the Book of Mormon is false. If you care to present a peer reviewed document that is not in dispute I will be happy to read it. Otherwise it really is simply an unproven hypothesis one way or the other.

[semlogo]

I fully expect such nonsense from my anti- and ex-Mormon critics, for whom it's an unshakable article of faith that I'm disingenuous and mean-spirited. But to get it from my own "side" is more than a little discouraging. A couple of experiences of this type were the immediate catalysts (though not the only reasons) that led me to sharply curtail my participation here.

Perhaps I was reading you wrong. If so, I apologize. But I'm sick of is the "us vs them" mentality of this particular board. The common practice here seems to act a little mean/passive aggressive towards your opponents, simply because they're your opponents. And then of course you have to defend those who agree with you, even if they're in the wrong or if they're behaving badly. I don't me "you" DCP, I mean "you" as in the average person here. I've done it too, and it's typical internet discussion board procedure. You see it all the time on political boards.

The Samaritans were the political and religious enemies/rivals of the Jews, but Jesus had nothing but praise for them, which tells me that "us vs them" and that kind of tribalistic attitude in general is antithetical to true religion - a conclusion I've recently come to. I'll defend an atheist or an evangelical from what I consider unfair attacks, even if I disagree with them, because I truly feel that's what Jesus would do. Now, I may have got it wrong in your case. If so, I apologize, but that's where I'm coming from.

[semlogo]

Or how about science not thinking that it has the only answers, even when there are big gaps of knowledge or things that can't be explained.

There are big gaps, but let's not make the mistake of automatically filling those gaps with God. It's fallacious and seems to always lead to embarrassment down the line.

[Deborah]

There are big gaps, but let's not make the mistake of automatically filling those gaps with God. It's fallacious and seems to always lead to embarrassment down the line.

You see that is the difference between you and me. In the first place I think that God is the Great Scientist and any discoveries we make he has already made. Miracles are unexplained phenomena that are the result of scientific principles we don't understand or are outside our mortal senses. It doesn't bother me that the gaps may one day have scientific explanations, because no matter how many gaps get filled there will still be other things that can't be explained, no matter how intelligent we think we are. Furthermore just because we have a logical explanation that fits our senses, that doesn't mean there isn't a higher law that works outside those senses.

[WalkerW]

There are big gaps, but let's not make the mistake of automatically filling those gaps with God. It's fallacious and seems to always lead to embarrassment down the line.

I agree. "God of the gaps" arguments are not good. I always try to explain to those that the arguments I have against materialism as it is commonly presented or understood do not automatically lead to a personal God and do not automatically lead to Christianity (and more specifically, Mormonism). For example, Buddhism gains a good amount of respect and attention from the neuroscience world. I simply think the shift in worldview opens the door for a personal God (this is where historical accounts from the Restoration or the New Testament would come in regarding Mormonism and Christianity as a whole).

[Walden]

Generally accepted? By whom? The doctrine doesn't speak to it. So really all you are doing is stating "Some Mormons take some things literally and some Mormons take some things symbolicallyl and therefore I get to choose at the greatest disadvantage and call it doctrine for your church." That isn't rational by any means.

The scientific community has not really stated that the Book of Mormon is false. If you care to present a peer reviewed document that is not in dispute I will be happy to read it. Otherwise it really is simply an unproven hypothesis one way or the other.

"Generally accepted? By whom?".....well, off the top of my head, I know that the Smithsonian Institute issued statements in 1996 and 1998 stating that the Book of Mormon is "a religious document and not a scientific guide," and that it "has found no archaeological evidence to support [the book's] claims." Also, the National Geopgraphic Society, in 1998, stated in a letter to the Institute for Religious Research that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." So, in a sense, you are correct, the scientific community has not stated that the Book of Mormon is false, they just state that no evidence has ver been found to substantiate the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And this is considered a victory by apologists? Yes, very scientific indeed.

Do we really need to re-hash the old, tired arguments for the numerous animals and technologies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there has not been found a single shred of evidence? Generally these discussions devolve into one in which apologists are left claiming that "horse" actually meanas "tapir, "steel" actually means some other metal, etc.

[WalkerW]

"Generally accepted? By whom?".....well, off the top of my head, I know that the Smithsonian Institute issued statements in 1996 and 1998 stating that the Book of Mormon is "a religious document and not a scientific guide," and that it "has found no archaeological evidence to support [the book's] claims." Also, the National Geopgraphic Society, in 1998, stated in a letter to the Institute for Religious Research that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." So, in a sense, you are correct, the scientific community has not stated that the Book of Mormon is false, they just state that no evidence has ver been found to substantiate the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And this is considered a victory by apologists? Yes, very scientific indeed.

Do we really need to re-hash the old, tired arguments for the numerous animals and technologies that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there has not been found a single shred of evidence? Generally these discussions devolve into one in which apologists are left claiming that "horse" actually meanas "tapir, "steel" actually means some other metal, etc.

It should be pointed out that the Smithsonian revised its statement after John Sorenson's documentation of many of the things they were dismissive of. Feel free to review some of the latest research by Sorenson in his "A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East," Sino-Platonic Papers 195 (Dec. 2009). Also, see John E. Clark, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14:2 (2005). The case for the Book of Mormon has gotten better over the years, not worse. Doesn't mean that it has been proven or that there aren't questionable aspects, but it is at the very least enough to raise some eyebrows.

The question is about actual evidence, not assertions from scientists who haven't given much thought to the book itself.

[44Foxtrot]

The question is about actual evidence, not assertions from scientists who haven't given much thought to the book itself.

By this logic, one could claim that the jury is still out on fairies in the garden because scientists have ignored the evidence for their existence contained in a myriad of books and centuries old eyewitness accounts.

In fact, considering the evidence for fairies in the garden and Lamanites, the probability of finding the former would seem greater than that of finding the latter.