Will facts eventually rule the day?

[Monster]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea. Ultimately some ideas turn out correct some may not, but the more evidence the more broadly the theory is accepted. If you look at evolution for example, it has been established in scientific circles that it has moved from theory to fact. 50 Years ago in the church I would say hardly anyone believed in evolution. Now many more members have come to accept it and try and incorporate it into their beliefs. As the understanding and facts piled up rational minds had to accept it at least to some degree. The same can be said for the age of the earth and other scientifically proven ideas.

So as time goes on religion will be more and more relegated to only being able to defend those things that are not provable by scientific methods, faith, the existence of God and such. Some will always hold on to beliefs that are contrary to the facts but over time facts tend to win the day.

Whether it be scientific, historical, or anything else at what point do the facts out weigh faith and force you to change your belief? Is it when you can connect the dots so to speak and start to see the big picture, or do you hold out to the point that it must be starring you in the face hitting you with a club before you accept the facts as the actual truth.

Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

[Duncan]

[Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

[Deborah]

I guess that is one thing I have always loved about the church. I have always been encouraged to study and learn and as our knowledge increases we see things in a different way. That doesn't have to destroy faith and in fact it only means that our understanding is limited, not the truth. It is actually the big picture one has to keep in mind. I find it quite disturbing that people fall away over things like evolution or DNA when those have nothing to do with the message of the gospel. They are on the periphery and if they enhance your knowledge why let them upset the foundation of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ and what it stands for.

[Bikeemikey]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea.

The core tenants of the philosophy of science dictate that fact is impossible. Science is about increasing the predictability of events. Fact, that is outcomes that can be guaranteed 100% of the time are self-confessed to be beyond the logical scope of science.

Read a little Karl Popper.

One frustrating issue with discussions around science is the mistaken understanding most people have that science can claims to find permanent and indisputable fact.

[paulpatter]

quote name='Monster' timestamp='1296954311' post='1208970811'

: In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea. Ultimately some ideas turn out correct some may not, but the more evidence the more broadly the theory is accepted. If you look at evolution for example, it has been established in scientific circles that it has moved from theory to fact. 50 Years ago in the church I would say hardly anyone believed in evolution. Now many more members have come to accept it and try and incorporate it into their beliefs. As the understanding and facts piled up rational minds had to accept it at least to some degree. The same can be said for the age of the earth and other scientifically proven ideas.

So as time goes on religion will be more and more relegated to only being able to defend those things that are not provable by scientific methods, faith, the existence of God and such. Some will always hold on to beliefs that are contrary to the facts but over time facts tend to win the day.

Whether it be scientific, historical, or anything else at what point do the facts out weigh faith and force you to change your belief? Is it when you can connect the dots so to speak and start to see the big picture, or do you hold out to the point that it must be starring you in the face hitting you with a club before you accept the facts as the actual truth.

Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

I'm quite sure that if you were to select a cross section of, say, 500 faithful LDS high priests and interview them after they had been given a "truth serum" (assuming there is such a thing), they would express some of the faith-eroding concerns you state in your OP. I suspect also that many would confess that their faith waxes and wanes.

Ultimately, however, I think they continue to be active, fully supportive members--sometimes at considerable sacrifice--because science cannot answer the "why" questions, the oldest of which is, I suppose, "Why is there anything?"

I should add that "facts" established by science are beset with fragility. Sometimes they "win the day"--but only the day. This is frequently seen in medical science. Example: For years doctors believed ulcers were caused by stress and excess acid. In severe cases, portions of patients' digestive tracts were removed. In 2005, two Australian scientists received the Nobel Prize for their discovery that a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori) is a major cause of stomach and intestinal ulcers. Subsequent research has established that Helicobacter pylori accounts for 90% of intestinal ulcers and 80% of gastric ulcers. (BBC News, "Nobel for stomach ulcer discovery," Oct. 3, 2005)

Yes, I know, this example (and others like it) doesn't cancel out the monumental contributions science has made to the welfare of humankind. But it does show that scientific "truths" are subject to revision, time and again. Hence, placing faith in science is fraught with some of the same difficulties one encounters when placing faith in Deity.

[Daniel Peterson]

So as time goes on religion will be more and more relegated to only being able to defend those things that are not provable by scientific methods, faith, the existence of God and such.

LOL. I'm relieved to know that you don't believe in going beyond the facts.

[TAO]

Monster, the scientific method is not applied to the sense of observation. Thus, it is not the only way to do things.

[thesometimesaint]

Monster:

Science while very valuable, is but one way of gathering information. It is terrible at evaluating the human value of that information.

[soccermom32]

As we gain more and more knowledge through science, metaphysical explanations of how the world works tend to be replaced with naturalistic explanations. You can see this same trend in neuroscience and psychology. The more we learn about how the brain works, the more we are able to give a purely naturalistic explanation of how we think and act. So Would that leave room for a soul? sure, but i dont think it would leave room for a soul that interacts with the brain and somehow influences the way people act or the things their mouths say.

people commonly view religion and science as "non-overlapping magesteria" as stephen j. gould would put it. That idea might hold true for some areas of science, but i definitely see some overlap when it comes to the science of the mind. it will be interesting to see how people will grapple with this issue as we gain a more full understanding of the neurophysiological basis of human behavior.

If you want to make sure that science will never cross into your religious territory, then never make any falsifiable claims.

[Monster]

Should Religion embrace things that change it at its core?

Good question. Perhaps not if it fundamentally changes its belief structure. I would just be concerned that it would become marginalized more and more as it's beliefs run contrary to known facts. Flat earthers will not adopt a belief that the earth is round, but who takes them seriously.

[Monster]

The core tenants of the philosophy of science dictate that fact is impossible. Science is about increasing the predictability of events. Fact, that is outcomes that can be guaranteed 100% of the time are self-confessed to be beyond the logical scope of science.

Read a little Karl Popper.

One frustrating issue with discussions around science is the mistaken understanding most people have that science can claims to find permanent and indisputable fact.

Ok so I can not prove something 100%, but I think we can agree 99,9% is close enough.

[Monster]

If you want to make sure that science will never cross into your religious territory, then never make any falsifiable claims.

Well said

[Duncan]

Good question. Perhaps not if it fundamentally changes its belief structure. I would just be concerned that it would become marginalized more and more as it's beliefs run contrary to known facts. Flat earthers will not adopt a belief that the earth is round, but who takes them seriously.

What is the "it" of religion though?

[Monster]

What is the "it" of religion though?

Sorry don't understand the question

[rodheadlee]

When Jesus Christ returns religion will be reconciled with science. We will be amazed.

[Monster]

When Jesus Christ returns religion will be reconciled with science. We will be amazed.

Been waiting over 2000 years for that to happen. At that rate by the time he gets here we will have figured it all out.

[Duncan]

Sorry don't understand the question

in your response to me you put two "it"'s and two "it's" and I was wondering what you mean by that, possibly put another way how do you define religion?

[elguanteloko]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea. Ultimately some ideas turn out correct some may not, but the more evidence the more broadly the theory is accepted. If you look at evolution for example, it has been established in scientific circles that it has moved from theory to fact. 50 Years ago in the church I would say hardly anyone believed in evolution. Now many more members have come to accept it and try and incorporate it into their beliefs. As the understanding and facts piled up rational minds had to accept it at least to some degree. The same can be said for the age of the earth and other scientifically proven ideas.

So as time goes on religion will be more and more relegated to only being able to defend those things that are not provable by scientific methods, faith, the existence of God and such. Some will always hold on to beliefs that are contrary to the facts but over time facts tend to win the day.

Whether it be scientific, historical, or anything else at what point do the facts out weigh faith and force you to change your belief? Is it when you can connect the dots so to speak and start to see the big picture, or do you hold out to the point that it must be starring you in the face hitting you with a club before you accept the facts as the actual truth.

Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

The concept of science (and its definition) go outside of science. Theory also goes outside of science. Logic goes outside of science. Mathematics goes outside of science. Ethics goes outside of science. Aesthetics goes outside of science.

Therefore, FAIL.

You should watch this video, though, seems like directed at you but isn't:

[44Foxtrot]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact.

Perhaps one could better think of science as the process of generating hypotheses based on observation and experimentation and then continually testing and refining those hypotheses based on physical evidence. This process affords us ever better and more accurate understanding about how the world and the universe work.

Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

The religionist's approach to gaining knowledge is to arrive at a near consensus with those of similar unfounded belief as to how the world and the universe work. Physical evidence plays little (if any) role in this process,. Once determined by consensual validation, the core beliefs of religion are resistant to change in the light of new, or previously unrecognized, physical evidence.

To say that religion is a way of gaining knowledge is to put severe limits on what is meant by knowledge. It is abundantly clear that revelatory "knowledge" is not new objective knowledge. It is opinion and belief . God has never revealed to man any useful new knowledge, of any kind, whatsoever. That is, there is no new knowledge contained in any the scriptures, preaching, or revelations of theistic religion that was not already known, or could have already been known, without supernatural assistance to humans when the scripture or revelation was written or revealed.

New objective knowledge is gained by humans from application of the scientific process, whether or not it is carried out by scientists.

Unfortunately 'religious knowledge' is not really knowledge at all, it is merely belief. No religionists can demonstrate that any truly new objective and useful knowledge has ever came from their Deities.

For those who might think I am overstating the case, try to name one scrap of truly new, useful, objective knowledge that has been given to humankind through any scripture or revelation. Remember, this has to be new knowledge, not something that was already known, or could have been known, by the individual claiming revelation from God.

As an example, instead of endless instruction to Joseph Smith Jr. on the fine points of polygamy and polyandry, would it have not been much more beneficial to humankind if God had given Joseph Smith a hint about the medicinal use of an extract from the common penicillium fungus? With this scrap of new knowledge, Joseph Smith might have saved millions of God's children from early death due to systemic infections.

Instead, Joseph Smith's revelations from God, as contained in the D&C, turn out to contain no new knowledge, and be of no real value to humankind at all.

[russianwolfe]

When Jesus Christ returns religion will be reconciled with science. We will be amazed.

When Jesus Christ returns, both religious beliefs and scientific beliefs will change. And we will be astounded at how stupid and petty we were to think that we understood so much when in fact we misunderstood more than we understood.

Marvin

[russianwolfe]

Instead, Joseph Smith's revelations from God, as contained in the D&C, turn out to contain no new knowledge, and be of no real value to humankind at all.

Your statement is very short sighted. Some day when you have a better view of things, you will see that Joseph Smith's revelations were of eternal value to humankind.

A child, who's parent refuses to allow a diet of candy, may think that the parent is just being mean. But when that child grow to maturity and has children of his own, will see the wisdom in a balanced diet.

Marvin

[Monster]

in your response to me you put two "it"'s and two "it's" and I was wondering what you mean by that, possibly put another way how do you define religion?

It just refered to religion. I was saying religion would be marginalized. Sorry often there is a translation error between my brain and my fingers typing.

[Monster]

The concept of science (and its definition) go outside of science. Theory also goes outside of science. Logic goes outside of science. Mathematics goes outside of science. Ethics goes outside of science. Aesthetics goes outside of science.

Therefore, FAIL.

What does this even mean? I am not smart enough to decipher cryptic comments that appear to make statements but do not inherently explain themselves.

[Bikeemikey]

Ok so I can not prove something 100%, but I think we can agree 99,9% is close enough.

No we can not agree that 99.9% is close enough. Science does not agree with this either. If 99.9% was close enough for the measurement of gravity as a law of physics then 1 in every 1000 objects on earth with be displaying some form of aberrant behavior when it came to adhering to the law of gravity.

Sciences claims are much stronger than 99.9% accurate. Though also not measured in terms of statistical failure vs. success. The claim of a scientific principal adhered to as "law" is that it has yet to be dis-proven. Not that in the last 1000 tests it only failed once. But that in the last x tests it has never failed. Still science realizes that such a proposition can not definitively claim that such a law will never fail. Is is logically impossible to claim that one can perform every test in a universe as complex and vast as ours. The concern with you post about science and fact is that it demonstrates a view of science and fact that even true scientists would not share. Science is not concerned with "fact" in the sense of immutable irrevocable law. It is concerned with balanced inquiry in an attempt to better understand the conditions as they are observed. Science can never prove something true. It can only ever show that something has yet to be proven false.

The key to science is the recognition that even the most basic assessments and laws need to be constantly revisited and retested. Such a principal of inquiry is not at odds with the development and refinement of religious faith/knowledge.

When science stops testing even the most foundational understandings of the universe is the moment it stops being good science. I think the same is true of religious belief. The we need to constantly engage in inquiry around our religion and statements of faith.

[Monster]

Perhaps one could better think of science as the process of generating hypotheses based on observation and experimentation and then continually testing and refining those hypotheses based on physical evidence. This process affords us ever better and more accurate understanding about how the world and the universe work.

The religionist's approach to gaining knowledge is to arrive at a near consensus with those of similar unfounded belief as to how the world and the universe work. Physical evidence plays little (if any) role in this process,. Once determined by consensual validation, the core beliefs of religion are resistant to change in the light of new, or previously unrecognized, physical evidence.

To say that religion is a way of gaining knowledge is to put severe limits on what is meant by knowledge. It is abundantly clear that revelatory "knowledge" is not new objective knowledge. It is opinion and belief . God has never revealed to man any useful new knowledge, of any kind, whatsoever. That is, there is no new knowledge contained in any the scriptures, preaching, or revelations of theistic religion that was not already known, or could have already been known, without supernatural assistance to humans when the scripture or revelation was written or revealed.

New objective knowledge is gained by humans from application of the scientific process, whether or not it is carried out by scientists.

Unfortunately 'religious knowledge' is not really knowledge at all, it is merely belief. No religionists can demonstrate that any truly new objective and useful knowledge has ever came from their Deities.

For those who might think I am overstating the case, try to name one scrap of truly new, useful, objective knowledge that has been given to humankind through any scripture or revelation. Remember, this has to be new knowledge, not something that was already known, or could have been known, by the individual claiming revelation from God.

As an example, instead of endless instruction to Joseph Smith Jr. on the fine points of polygamy and polyandry, would it have not been much more beneficial to humankind if God had given Joseph Smith a hint about the medicinal use of an extract from the common penicillium fungus? With this scrap of new knowledge, Joseph Smith might have saved millions of God's children from early death due to systemic infections.

Instead, Joseph Smith's revelations from God, as contained in the D&C, turn out to contain no new knowledge, and be of no real value to humankind at all.

I must say that was a highly enlightening post for me. Yes religious knowledge is not really knowledge and should not be treated as such. I think the issue that gets brought is when those of true belief take their belief as perfect knowledge and therefore by nature attempt to incorporate it into policy in their family and community. Sometimes it is good policy and sometimes it is not. But to the believer it is all good since it could not be bad because it is from God.

Yes i believe you are correct. If you think about it what practical knowledge did God reveal to Joseph? I guess one might say the WofW, but then that is not even very accurate in its application. Tobacco for cattle and bruises? Revelation boils down to mostly policy about the behavioral does and dont's