Satan And Science

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Do you disbelieve our 9th Article of Faith: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.?

[Jeff K.]

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!

I know of no place where science wholeheartedly supports religion, or wholeheartedly undermines it. Your link is somewhat silly since fasting is only a religious act when done with religious intent. In other words it is a neutral act. When I fast prior to a physical, I am not carrying out a religious act.

It is like stating that using the internet is a religious act. The intent of the act not the act itself is religious.

Nor does the article support the idea that somehow the religious act is what makes people healthier, only that the act itself makes people healthier. You should read the articles more carefully.

[Walden]

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?

I thought I was joining a discussion on satan and science?

I don't belive that aliens have visited earth, does that mean I cannot speak my mind about aliens visiting earth? I don't believe in the existence of Santa Claus, does that mean I cannot discuss that jolly old elf? I don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old, does that mean I cannot speak to the topic of the Young Earth movement?

Does one have to believe in something in order to speak to it....if so, then this board should be exclusive to TBMs.

[Franktalk]

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

You are confusing mechanics with truth. It is true that there is a God in heaven. There is no truth in converting a shifting frequency radio wave into music.

[Franktalk]

I thought I was joining a discussion on satan and science?

I don't belive that aliens have visited earth, does that mean I cannot speak my mind about aliens visiting earth? I don't believe in the existence of Santa Claus, does that mean I cannot discuss that jolly old elf? I don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old, does that mean I cannot speak to the topic of the Young Earth movement?

Does one have to believe in something in order to speak to it....if so, then this board should be exclusive to TBMs.

Feel free to chat about Satan. Now once you write that you don't believe in Satan and don't believe in any influence in science of any supernatural being what is left? Are you then going to beat the drum of No No No. Just asking.

[Stargazer]

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?

It's worse. How can one devise an experiment to determine the Why of anything?

If they can't figure out what is going on with the

, then disproving or proving the existence of God is well beyond our capability. At least until God finally reveals Himself to everyone. Which will happen.

[jskains]

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.

Just because you don't believe in the Devil, does not mean he doesn't exist.

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.

So? If there is a God, then Science is missing an important fact.

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!

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist... (Yes, Usual Suspects - But still a great line).

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....

Casting it off as scare-mongering is your easy way to not actually address the possibility.

JMS

[Jeff K.]

Quote

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.

So? If there is a God, then Science is missing an important fact.

If I might quibble, is an unproveable assertion an important fact?

[krose]

Let me know when you find it. I'm betting you won't because it didn't exist- but I am sure you already knew that.

Science does this thing- its called replication. If your results can't be replicated, it can really damage your career. So unless every scientist has the same agenda (which is a funny concept), this wouldn't make sense at all!

Nice. So your method of dialog is to agressively come out swinging, call people liars, and act like a bully without knowing all the facts?

You can easily refute him. Just produce the claimed study.

[Walden]

Now once you write that you don't believe in Satan and don't believe in any influence in science of any supernatural being what is left?

What is left???....science, empirical data and objective evidence, which is just fine by me.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

Do you disbelieve our 9th Article of Faith: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.?

Now that you mention it, I have my doubts about whether or not God will be revealing any "great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" in the future, unless we broadly define "great" and "important" in such a way that anything in a First Presidency Memo can qualify.

Except for a 2-hour meeting block. That would be a great and important thing, and I have faith that it can happen.

Edited May 17, 2011 by cinepro

[Franktalk]

What is left???....science, empirical data and objective evidence, which is just fine by me.

If you wish to argue about the existence of Satan how can you use science? Satan is a supernatural being which science does not deal with. The discussion was about whether Satan would use science to bring man from God. Since you do not believe in Satan then talking about strategies of Satan does not make much sense. Unless you do so as a thought exercise.

I think it is fair to say that many people have lost faith because there is a pressure from science to discount the spiritual and accept the natural or deterministic world. This really started in the late 1700's and continues today. This has also ushered in moral relativism because natural explanations do not have room for an absolute moral source. You may take the position that this all happened quite by accident and it is the fault of the faithful that they allowed science to change them. But I have read hundred of the letters written between Darwin and Charles Lyell. So I know that a plan to topple the church was in play. With willing converts along the way and progressives willing to sell their soul for social change they dismantled the moral fabric of Europe, the UK, and the United States. Now was this movement guided by supernatural powers or was it of men alone? Since you do not believe in Satan then your bias would show up by default. The weight of the history would not be seen by you as even possible to have been affected by a spiritual power. So your position by default is support Satan in his role if indeed he had any influence because you would not see his influence. To discern spirits one must first believe they exist. Which is of course my point.

[Walden]

If you wish to argue about the existence of Satan how can you use science? Satan is a supernatural being which science does not deal with. The discussion was about whether Satan would use science to bring man from God. Since you do not believe in Satan then talking about strategies of Satan does not make much sense. Unless you do so as a thought exercise.

I think it is fair to say that many people have lost faith because there is a pressure from science to discount the spiritual and accept the natural or deterministic world. This really started in the late 1700's and continues today. This has also ushered in moral relativism because natural explanations do not have room for an absolute moral source. You may take the position that this all happened quite by accident and it is the fault of the faithful that they allowed science to change them. But I have read hundred of the letters written between Darwin and Charles Lyell. So I know that a plan to topple the church was in play. With willing converts along the way and progressives willing to sell their soul for social change they dismantled the moral fabric of Europe, the UK, and the United States. Now was this movement guided by supernatural powers or was it of men alone? Since you do not believe in Satan then your bias would show up by default. The weight of the history would not be seen by you as even possible to have been affected by a spiritual power. So your position by default is support Satan in his role if indeed he had any influence because you would not see his influence. To discern spirits one must first believe they exist. Which is of course my point.

Franktalk, did you actually read my posts or are you just making things up?

My argument had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the existence of satan. My argument was (and I will go back and quote it for you....please read slowly) "The goal of science, in general, is to provide objective evidence for the laws that define the natural world. Science itself, as someone else pointed out, is agnostic. If god could be proven by scientific analysis backed by objective, empirical evidence, then he would be proven to exist.

I also don't believe that your statement that "science is a powerful mechanism that appears to be turning people from God and toward secularism and immortality," is correct. Sciencific analysis is a tool that is used to shed light on facts and uncover the mysteries of the natural world. Yes, these facts may be turning people away from god, as they provide explanations to those things which were once a mystery and thus assumed to be created, manipulated or controlled by god in civilizations that once lacked the technology to understand the basis for these facts. It is fact, empirical data and objective evidnce that is turning people away from god, not scientists."

I have no idea where you got that I "wish to argue about the existence of Satan [using] science?" That isn't anywhere in any of my threads. I was simply arguing (now again, read slowly) that the goal of science is not to turn people away from god, as implied in the OPs statement, but simply, to "provide objective evidence for the laws that define the natural world."

Science is not turning people away from god. Facts are turning people away from god....the facts that are supported by actual objective evidence and replace the myths propped up by religion. The more we discover about the natural world, the less we have to rely on the mystical to explain it.

So, if you want, you can be upset with the facts.....just don't shoot the messengers (the scientists).

[Franktalk]

Walden,

Since the title of this thread is Satan and science I thought that is what we should discuss. If you wish to open a thread and argue over whether there is a God I would love the opportunity to discuss that subject with someone who is reasonable. It is a much wider subject than the title of thread suggest. And I do try and stay within the lines.

[jskains]

If I might quibble, is an unproveable assertion an important fact?

You might want to read first. I said IF there is a God, science is missing an important fact. That is to say if you die, and go to a heaven, meet God, you can automatically know Science is completely on the wrong track.

JMS

[Eldwynn]

You might want to read first. I said IF there is a God, science is missing an important fact. That is to say if you die, and go to a heaven, meet God, you can automatically know Science is completely on the wrong track.

JMS

Which branch of science investigates what happens after you die? And what is it about god that makes him invisible to science? I think those questions are far more interesting.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Eldwynn

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Science by definition deals with the natural world/universe. It doesn't deal with the supernatural. For a scientist to deal with the supernatural using the methods of science is like the heart surgeon trying to repair house plumbing. Well qualified in his area or expertise, but unqualified in a different area.

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

Science by definition deals with the natural world/universe. It doesn't deal with the supernatural. For a scientist to deal with the supernatural using the methods of science is like the heart surgeon trying to repair house plumbing. Well qualified in his area or expertise, but unqualified in a different area.

Your analogy is false, because I don't believe anyones "qualifications" are in religion. sure, you can get a degree in theology, but it does not make your personal subjective feelings about god any more valid than mine.

FWIW, science DOES deal with the supernatural. The problem is, that once they do, it stops being supernatural, and becomes either "natural" or just "not real".

Also, I would question whether all theories of consciousness surviving death are supernatural. Many of them are, but some are not.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Eldwynn

[jskains]

Your analogy is false, because I don't believe anyones "qualifications" are in religion. sure, you can get a degree in theology, but it does not make your personal subjective feelings about god any more valid than mine.

FWIW, science DOES deal with the supernatural. The problem is, that once they do, it stops being supernatural, and becomes either "natural" or just "not real".

Also, I would question whether all theories of consciousness surviving death are supernatural. Many of them are, but some are not.

Understanding the history of religion and God has more value than you give it credit for.

JMS

[jskains]

Which branch of science investigates what happens after you die? And what is it about god that makes him invisible to science? I think those questions are far more interesting.

Members of the medical profession specifically have tried to do their own investigations into life after death. It hasn't been ignored.

And as for what about God makes Him invisible to science? IMHO it is the arrogance of Science that makes it impossible to find Him. Science has become increasingly egotistical as a whole about what it knows, and I think that pride blinds it.

JMS

[Walden]

Walden,

Since the title of this thread is Satan and science I thought that is what we should discuss. If you wish to open a thread and argue over whether there is a God I would love the opportunity to discuss that subject with someone who is reasonable. It is a much wider subject than the title of thread suggest. And I do try and stay within the lines.

I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here.....the topic is satan and science, and I took the position that there is no satan in science. As simple as that. I'm not quite sure why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

If you don't like my position I can understand, but to try to reframe my posts as something that they are not does nothing to contribute to this discussion. If I was out of line or taking the discussion in a completely off-topic direction, as you seem to suiggest, the moderators on this board would certainly chime in. Are you auditioning to be a moderator here or something?

[Jeff K.]

You might want to read first. I said IF there is a God, science is missing an important fact. That is to say if you die, and go to a heaven, meet God, you can automatically know Science is completely on the wrong track.

JMS

Only if science is attempting to disprove God, which it isn't doing because basically, it can't. It is attempting to show how the universe works, which is an entirely different matter.

[Jeff K.]

Which branch of science investigates what happens after you die? And what is it about god that makes him invisible to science? I think those questions are far more interesting.

What is it about dark matter that made it invisible for so long? Or tachyons?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

Your analogy is false, because I don't believe anyones "qualifications" are in religion. sure, you can get a degree in theology, but it does not make your personal subjective feelings about god any more valid than mine.

FWIW, science DOES deal with the supernatural. The problem is, that once they do, it stops being supernatural, and becomes either "natural" or just "not real".

Also, I would question whether all theories of consciousness surviving death are supernatural. Many of them are, but some are not.

If you speak with God, then your qualifications are pretty good.

I do not distinguish supernatural from the natural since all nature flows from God, therefore I would concur that the defining difference between the natural and suprenatural is the knowledge of its operation, and not necessarily an objective characteristic. Though in this I could be wrong since it gets kind of slippering around the edges.

[jskains]

Only if science is attempting to disprove God, which it isn't doing because basically, it can't. It is attempting to show how the universe works, which is an entirely different matter.

I think it is safe to assume a great deal of push is to try to show the universe was created without a need for a God, one of the very principles God warned His children against.

JMS