Satan And Science

[Franktalk]

I'm not a scientist, but it is my understanding that there are several different methods to date natural phenomenon, and part of the strength of many theories about the ages of certain things are the precision with which the dating methodologies coincide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dating_methods

It's not just "carbon dating".

First of all I don't really care how old the earth is. It could be young or it could be old. The issue is has it been uniform like the assumption. The magnetic strength of the earth is changing over time. The magnetic fields from the sun are also changing over time. Has the fabric of space been constant going back in time? I don't know but science itself says it has been very different at one time. The theory of the big bang forces the fabric of space to be radically different. But our dating processes require it to be constant. So who is telling the truth? Both groups are science. Can't you see that each group has a narrow focus and they do the best they can with the data they have. Yet they come to opposite conclusions. Does this concern you?

[Franktalk]

Reference my evangelical friends beliefs that I mentioned in an earlier post (earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs existed in biblical times) that are part of his faith that have been disproved by science. Of course, considering your following argument regarding atomic decay, you may be one who believes that the earth is indeed 6000 years old and that dinosaurs were on the ark with Noah. Again, it generally comes down to where one derives their "truth."

It is not the job of scientists to study "supernatural' events....the goal of science is to explain the natural world. If events are "supernatural" then they fall outside the natural world, and thus, the tools that scientists use to analyze the natural world are useless.

Regarding your atomic decay argument, of course nobody has a time machine, and thus everything regarding ancient history is an assumption. What science does is to constantly hone down the various assumptions until there is a select set of assumptions, or a single assumption, that can be empirically proven and objectively verified to the greatest degree possible. What science does is make the most valid assumption about ancient history using the known facts as they are known at this time.

Science does not accept supernatural events. All explanations must be in naturalistic terms. Then science says (many of the men in science) there is no proof of God. That is true because we live by faith. But because some scientist use science as their personal backdrop of atheism they enter into a debate that science by definition has sidestepped. How can a group declare a conclusion they by definition don't study?

You mention valid assumptions and known facts but are these relative to worldview? If so then it is personal and not something I will use for my walk in faith.

[Brian 2.0]

Science does not accept supernatural events. All explanations must be in naturalistic terms. Then science says (many of the men in science) there is no proof of God. That is true because we live by faith. But because some scientist use science as their personal backdrop of atheism they enter into a debate that science by definition has sidestepped. How can a group declare a conclusion they by definition don't study?

You mention valid assumptions and known facts but are these relative to worldview? If so then it is personal and not something I will use for my walk in faith.

I think they would say that there is no scientific evidence for God.

And then when the retort from a believer is "faith." The scientists don't accept "faith" as evidence because they don't consider it reliable or scientific.

I don't think scientists are sidestepping, they are just arguing form their assumptions which discounts "faith" as evidence and believers are arguing from their assumptions which uses "faith" and "inspiration" as evidence.

I think believers sometimes do the sidestepping when they try to use science to confirm or argue their religious beliefs, but then discount it on other matters when it doesn't support their beliefs.

[cinepro]

Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

JMS

Maybe we could ask to shake science's hand?

[Brian 2.0]

Maybe we could ask to shake science's hand?

i like that one.

[jskains]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/16/6654463-hawking-there-is-no-heaven

Ironic.

[Walden]

Science does not accept supernatural events. All explanations must be in naturalistic terms. Then science says (many of the men in science) there is no proof of God. That is true because we live by faith. But because some scientist use science as their personal backdrop of atheism they enter into a debate that science by definition has sidestepped. How can a group declare a conclusion they by definition don't study?

You mention valid assumptions and known facts but are these relative to worldview? If so then it is personal and not something I will use for my walk in faith.

Just because "some scientists use science as their personal backdrop of atheism," doesn't mean that science has proven that there is no god nor that the purpose of science is to prove that there is no god. Given data that supports the existence of god, I am sure that most scientists would change from being atheists to theists. Such an argument, at this time, is inconsequential as there is no relevant objective evidence pointing to god's existence. As far as a "a group declar[ing] a conclusion," I don't know that a groups personal beliefs mean that a conclusion has been determined....the "conclusion" regarding the existence of god will likely never have a "conclusion."

I myself am an atheist, but as I've said many times in previous posts on other topics, I have no illusions that my atheism is the ultimate truth.....I could very well be completely off the mark when it comes to the question of whether god exists, and I am fine with it. But interpreting the world around me through my own experience and my own knowledge (which I freely admit is limited), atheism is the conclusion that I have come to.

[Eldwynn]

I myself am an atheist, but as I've said many times in previous posts on other topics, I have no illusions that my atheism is the ultimate truth.....I could very well be completely off the mark when it comes to the question of whether god exists, and I am fine with it. But interpreting the world around me through my own experience and my own knowledge (which I freely admit is limited), atheism is the conclusion that I have come to.

I love the way you put this. This is the best summary of why the majority of nonreligious people are so different from the average Mormon or strong theist. So many people (wrongly) characterize atheists as "knowing there is no god" in the same that they say "I know that god exists" in sacrament meeting. This just does not accurately describe the group. The absence of evidence doesn't PROVE there is not a god, but it allows us to say "well, you can't make your case adequately, so I choose to doubt your results until you can".

I could describe evidence that would convince me that there is a god. However, as much as I ask, I have yet to hear a religious person describe what experiment we could do to convince them in the non-existence of something.

Maybe Sam Harris is right, when he says that we should just abandon the word atheist altogether, because it invites confusion.

[Brian 2.0]

I could describe evidence that would convince me that there is a god. However, as much as I ask, I have yet to hear a religious person describe what experiment we could do to convince them in the non-existence of something.

It comes down to having your conclusion set in stone before looking at new evidence.

Most TBMs or strong theists have some conclusions that are set, "I know there is a God" and "I know the church is true." And it doesn't matter the evidence after that, because it can't affect those set conclusions, so there must be a way to reconcile the new evidence with the pre-set conclusions.

I used to be this way. And when I allowed my self to consider the possibility that there is no God, then the evidence started looking a whole lot different.

I don't classify myself as anything right now because I'm just starting out on this process. I'm an active Mormon that seems to end up agreeing with atheist/agnostic views in debates and discussions.

[Franktalk]

I myself am an atheist, but as I've said many times in previous posts on other topics, I have no illusions that my atheism is the ultimate truth.....I could very well be completely off the mark when it comes to the question of whether god exists, and I am fine with it. But interpreting the world around me through my own experience and my own knowledge (which I freely admit is limited), atheism is the conclusion that I have come to.

If one studies real hard they will come to the conclusion that science offers no proof of the nature of our reality. And people of faith offer no proof of the existence of God. So we are left with our self to figure it out. So we either see a purpose and seek the unseen or we accept the seen as all there is. I have to ask why you joined a discussion on Satan if indeed you don't believe there is a Satan?

[Franktalk]

I think believers sometimes do the sidestepping when they try to use science to confirm or argue their religious beliefs, but then discount it on other matters when it doesn't support their beliefs.

For me the single thing which might lead to proof of God is evil. At times we find it so raw and so out of control. It seems out of place in a world based on natural balance. If indeed the world's life is balanced between too much change and not enough change it seems odd that some species would use vast amounts of energy to do evil beyond what is required for survival.

Anyone who says they have proof of God does not know enough about the universe. The closest thing to the unseen is dark mass and dark energy and some experiments with rats, also some experiments in physics. But they are curiosities not proof.

[jskains]

It comes down to having your conclusion set in stone before looking at new evidence.

Most TBMs or strong theists have some conclusions that are set, "I know there is a God" and "I know the church is true." And it doesn't matter the evidence after that, because it can't affect those set conclusions, so there must be a way to reconcile the new evidence with the pre-set conclusions.

I used to be this way. And when I allowed my self to consider the possibility that there is no God, then the evidence started looking a whole lot different.

I don't classify myself as anything right now because I'm just starting out on this process. I'm an active Mormon that seems to end up agreeing with atheist/agnostic views in debates and discussions.

But then lets push your ideas from a position that the Church IS true. Would then not your position be influenced by Satan? Is not the question of "is there possibly not a God" a promotion of influence from the Adversary?

JMS

[Jeff K.]

BCSpace:

I'll agree. However I believe that science has to be Agnostic(not necessarily the scientists themselves) in that we can't put God in any experiments. We can't put the Devil either.

I agree. The approach of scientific experimentation must by its nature be agnostic, while the scientist acknowledging God or not should have no affect on the methodology of observation and results. Our belief system tells us why things are as they are, science tells us how. There is no conflict.

[Jeff K.]

Eldwynn, on 16 May 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

I could describe evidence that would convince me that there is a god. However, as much as I ask, I have yet to hear a religious person describe what experiment we could do to convince them in the non-existence of something.

It comes down to having your conclusion set in stone before looking at new evidence.

Most TBMs or strong theists have some conclusions that are set, "I know there is a God" and "I know the church is true." And it doesn't matter the evidence after that, because it can't affect those set conclusions, so there must be a way to reconcile the new evidence with the pre-set conclusions.

I used to be this way. And when I allowed my self to consider the possibility that there is no God, then the evidence started looking a whole lot different.

I don't classify myself as anything right now because I'm just starting out on this process. I'm an active Mormon that seems to end up agreeing with atheist/agnostic views in debates and discussions.

This is not accurate in the least. Stating that most TBM's reject the matter of evidence simply because of their belief system is wrong, and it is insulting to a very rational and pragmatic people. And using the reconciliation of evidence connect earlier systems of thought to new evidence that makes its way through experimentation is a normal course of events for scientists and well as theologists.

You make the error of assuming that science can prove or disprove God and therefore some evidence thereof exists and has been rejected. By all means, if such conclusive evidence exists, then we should all embrace it. I certainly haven't seen it, neither have my agnostic and athiest friends. At this point most rational beings will tell you such a postulation is unproveable.

I used to be this way. And when I allowed my self to consider the possibility that there is no God, then the evidence started looking a whole lot different.

In other words you changed your perception, not necessarily the evidence. Or more to the point, because your opinion is different the evidence must of course lead to how did you say it? Oh yes a "pre-set conclusion". So one could argue you are "still that way", only your opinion has changed.

Using the term "active Mormon" to somehow bolster credibility when you do not believe in the basic tenets of either our church or even Christianity supposes that you consider an active Mormon to be someone who "shows up". If you go to the Temple and do not believe in its teaching, you aren't active, you are mocking God and those who do believe. If you attend a fast and testimony meeting and sit there believing the populace to be delusional, you in effect mock them. Active Mormons do not mock the church they attend. Active Mormons participate, or they sincerely study as to why they are not participating and usually make their choices. Some would argue that the social portion is what keeps them going. But then you in effect must state that society controls you and that you will go along. A dangerous thing indeed. Interestingly many converts must overcome the societal currents in order to enter this church. They swim against the tide. Now those are active Mormons.

All that aside, science has little to do with religion. Much as the internet does not prove or disprove God, it is merely a tool that can be used by both those who follow God and those who follow Satan. It is neutral or agnostic, like science.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Franktalk]

It comes down to having your conclusion set in stone before looking at new evidence.

Most TBMs or strong theists have some conclusions that are set, "I know there is a God" and "I know the church is true." And it doesn't matter the evidence after that, because it can't affect those set conclusions, so there must be a way to reconcile the new evidence with the pre-set conclusions.

I used to be this way. And when I allowed my self to consider the possibility that there is no God, then the evidence started looking a whole lot different.

I don't classify myself as anything right now because I'm just starting out on this process. I'm an active Mormon that seems to end up agreeing with atheist/agnostic views in debates and discussions.

All of us consider the possibility there is no God. That is normal. We ask how can God exist when we have such evil in the world and He does not stop it? We ask why are some born into poverty and others into riches? Why are some people gathered and slaughtered while others are protected by a nuclear arsenal. This pushes our sense of fairness to the limits. But in this world we need those extremes, it gives us perspective. We know what is evil and what is love. If evil was suppressed we would not know evil. We know charity because of the imbalance of wealth. And we know fear and sorrow because of the weakness of the flesh. We obtained the knowledge of good and evil and now we are to find a good path in this fallen world filled with all kinds of sin and evil. We are to seek the light but that is because this world is in darkness.

The above is just words and they mean nothing. If we struggle alone we have missed the mark by a mile. We are to form a relationship with God by talking to Him about everything we do. Over time God does indwell then we are not alone. We have no power but God has infinite power. He will not fix the world so we have an easy time but He will give us strength to endure what ever comes our way. This I know. I love God and I know He loves me.

[Brian 2.0]

Active Mormons do not mock the church they attend. Active Mormons participate, or they sincerely study as to why they are not participating and usually make their choices.

I do not mean to "mock" as you say. And I guess according to you statement I am the "sincerenly study as to why they are not participating and usually make their choices phase" but that isn't a short phase, so by you definition I am "active mormon"

I don't want to generalize an I know there are plenty on the spectrum, but let me try and restate myself more clearly.

I am this "study" phase I have often gone in to try and study things like Polygany/Polyandry or Book of Abraham Papayrus which I have known about and I've alway put in on the metaphorical shelf. But when I look at it now I try to look at it with an openness to any conclusion (be it believing or disbelieving). Case in point I was discussing Book of Abraham papayrus with someone and with every piece of evidence we came across he always approached it with "well, we know the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture from God so how does this fit it." What I am trying to say now is that approach seems to me as a pre-set conclusion. He was not open to the possibility that it was anything against those conclusions. New evidence could change some of his approaches (i.e. maybe the text in the papayrus wasn't the same as our book of Abraham, but god used it as a starting point to give Joseph the revelation), but nothing he came across could ever allow him to consider a conclusion outside of God inspiring Joseph Smith to give us the Book of Abraham.

I don't want to argue the Book of Abraham here, I'm trying to discuss how to approach things like the authenticity of Book of Abraham. I am trying not to approach with any pre-set conclusions, be it that "it's direct inspired translation" or "Joseph Smith made it up."

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

"I hope you are not saying that science has truth in it. The whole of creation has no truth, the laws of nature have no truth in them. They are a thing just like a rock is a thing. In science we have observation and declare relationships between the parts of creation and the forces. This is not truth."

Next time you really believe that try jumping off of a high cliff sans parachute.

[Jeff K.]

Ok, that being said. I think the "study phase" as you put it, is a normal course of events. It is how we come to either learn or reject what we have learned.

Your view of the Book of Abraham as being an example of a preconcieved notion is not a bad one. But in that sense science follows the same preconceived notions. No scientist begins an experiment without having some idea as to the outcome. Especially if that outcome is one that is generally accepted. Science then attempts to match the outlier number or conclusion with the normative results that they have come to expect. New ideas do not percolate from one experiment or even a series. Cold Fusion was not suddenly accepted because a single set of experiments seemed to show its plausibility. In science new breakthroughs have a hard hill to climb as it should be.

In the Book of Abraham, you have questions about the surviving texts. I suppose the first would be whether or not those were the texts that were translated or whether or not what was seen was the whole translation. I don't know these answers. And of course the view you present that the papyri were actually merely the starting point for a revelatory process.

There is nothing in other words that can truly negate or support the conclusions, which does not mean a lack of evidence is evidence. So the presumed movement based on a lack of evidence would not be judicious in the part of science, nor would it in this case. The how's cannot be fully explained by religion, but the why's are never really explained by science. Rarely to the two spheres intermingle for a conceptual clarity of how and why. Such I believe must await the coming of the Lord.

[Brian 2.0]

I agree Jeff, K

And I don't think we actually disagree that much in the methodologies of both science and religion.

Scientists do have a preconceived notion of how things will turn out in their experiments and the mindset scientists/religionsist/everyone should try to have is that IF things continually DON'T turn out in accordance with a preconceived notion that they should be "humble" enough to admit that things didn't work they way they thought and be opened to new notions that can explain the results.

In that sense, I don't really mind an agnostic scientist setting out to perform experiments to disprove God or more likely some tenant of religion that has a scientific aspect to it, because if those experiments turn out different than he expected, he will have actually proven true that tenant of religion that has a scientific aspect to it. (unless they are proud and hide their results from the world, which I don't think would happen because proof of such a thing would be quite a find and they would gladly change their notions to receive the accolades for proving it).

And in the reverse, if the agnostic scientist somehow convincingly proves false a tenant of religion that has a scientific aspect to it, the believers of that tenant should be humble enough to change their preconceived notions regarding it.

Openness for change needs to be there on both sides.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Brian 2.0

[Jeff K.]

I agree Jeff, K

And I don't think we actually disagree that much in the methodologies of both science and religion.

Scientists do have a preconceived notion of how things will turn out in their experiments and the mindset scientists/religionsist/everyone should try to have is that IF things continually DON'T turn out in accordance with a preconceived notion that they should be "humble" enough to admit that things didn't work they way they thought and be opened to new notions that can explain the results.

In that sense, I don't really mind an agnostic scientist setting out to perform experiments to disprove God or more likely some tenant of religion that has a scientific aspect to it, because if those experiments turn out different than he expected, he will have actually proven true that tenant of religion that has a scientific aspect to it. (unless they are proud and hide their results from the world, which I don't think would happen because proof of such a thing would be quite a find and they would gladly change their notions to receive the accolades for proving it).

And in the reverse, if the agnostic scientist somehow convincingly proves false a tenant of religion that has a scientific aspect to it, the believers of that tenant should be humble enough to change their preconceived notions regarding it.

Openness for change needs to be there on both sides.

I think the difficulty you run into when disproving God is that you can neither disprove or prove. How does one declare an experiment to answer why, or why not?

[Brian 2.0]

I think the difficulty you run into when disproving God is that you can neither disprove or prove. How does one declare an experiment to answer why, or why not?

I don't think you can "disprove God." It's just not a specific provable tenant. But I do think there is a way to declare experiments that can set out to prove or disprove certain tenants of religion that have a scientific component, such as Global Flood, Healing Power of blessings/prayer, etc.

[Questing Beast]

I have always enjoyed the concept behind the movie The Matrix. To me it is a reminder of the fluid nature of reality. Conspiricy Theories exist because we know human limitations and our abilities to be manipulated.

Other examples of interesting mind concepts are The Truman Show (tricking someone through extreme manipulation into believing a false world), Total Recall (was it all part of his "memory vacation" or not), and many Twilight Zone eposides.

It poses an interesting question. If someone creates virtual reality so realistic, you can't tell the difference, once you go into the system, would you ever know from that point forward if you ever escaped? (IE: you being removed from the machine never happens, rather its simulated).

What this brings me to is the deep dark question. Can science itself be manipulated by the Devil and would be know if it was?

And "God" doesn't allow the devil to manipulate religion? Just science?

The whole concept of manipulation by the devil is special pleading; you can excuse any evidence that disagrees with your paradigm as "the devil's work". That is simply medieval scare-mongering; it is witch hunter stuff; it is The Inquisition in embryo waiting to break out again.

Science has been taking a constantly anti-God position with over 80% of scientists being basically Athiest or Agnostic. The followers of the religion of Science believe it replaces the need for a God. It seems conveniently moving people away from spiritual dependence and giving people an independence from "childish concepts" like God, etc.

And thus we have the "devil in the details" so perceived by religionists. "Godless science" is not a given, yet it is the most common segment, as you note. Nevertheless, science is devoid of "God", i.e. metaphysics: science is purely empirical-only. The devil has nothing more to do with it than "God" does. And the simple fact is that science has nothing whatsoever to say about "God" or anything metaphysical; it cannot address the existence of the metaphysical, so science cannot prove or disprove what it cannot address.

Abandonment of a dependence on Heavenly Father is a common theme in many religious texts, expecially the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It seems we are warned against it and have been before Science was even a concern as a threat toward spirituality (removing the idea those passages were added as a safety value for people to say what I am about to say to protect "religion").

It just seems science is conveniently a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality. Everything the Bible warned us against.

Worse, if Science WAS being driven by the Devil and his influence, would we know? Are we not possibly being lead away from God like lambs to slaughter?

Something to consider.

JMS

I'd have to believe in a "devil" fighting eternally against "God" in the first place. I do not. Oh no! I am being deceived by the devil into believing that he doesn't exist!

More scare-mongering. If you flee something because of fear, then I would look first to the perpetrator of that fear to attach the blame to. And that would be "God". Hah! Actually, it would be religionists SAYING that "God" said such and such, etc.

If "God" does not tell me directly, I am not bound by anything said by another person or written in any number of books. That's (part of) my religion and I am sticking to it....

[Jeff K.]

I don't think you can "disprove God." It's just not a specific provable tenant. But I do think there is a way to declare experiments that can set out to prove or disprove certain tenants of religion that have a scientific component, such as Global Flood, Healing Power of blessings/prayer, etc.

The power of healing has to many variables that cannot be measured, for instance how do you measure if it is God's will or not that someone be healed?

Global flooding is not a doctrinal point, at least not for our church.

Some things cannot be measured, other things can, but have no impact on doctrine.

[Brian 2.0]

The power of healing has to many variables that cannot be measured, for instance how do you measure if it is God's will or not that someone be healed?

I'm going to start another thread on this, because it's slightly off topic, but I have some further questions regarding it.

[cinepro]

The power of healing has to many variables that cannot be measured, for instance how do you measure if it is God's will or not that someone be healed?

Global flooding is not a doctrinal point, at least not for our church.

Some things cannot be measured, other things can, but have no impact on doctrine.

The saving grace (no pun intended) of religion is the ability of believers to run from science when needed. Heaven help them (no pun intended) if science ever catches up.

In other words, religion seems able to survive as long as it is kept in a seperate sphere from science (only overlapping in those places where science supports it). The problem is that science if forever expanding its reach in unusual and unpredictable ways, so religion best be nimble, and make sure those "core" doctrines are worded in such a way that they will never, ever be able to be falsified!