Predestination And Foreordination. Does Science Preclude Either?

[mfbukowski]

It is essential that we ourselves as LDS, in my opinion, understand science in Kuhnian terms as a "model" of reality which must change from time to time. Clearly the methodology is pragmatic- one theory works for a while until new data appears and the old theory has to be thrown out.

In my opinion, this is much like "continuing revelation"- we have new problems and new ways of looking at reality than we did thousands of years ago, so we must invent new ways of dealing with this information and we do so through inspiration. Yes doctrine changes- so what? So does science; both are in response to throwing out inadequate models from the past and replacing them with new models which in turn, we should know from the start, will also disappear in time according to what is needed.

This is, to me, the true meaning of what we call in the LDS linguistic context, "eternal progression". God himself changes and grows as his children grow. What parent has not experienced this? It is the natural order of things; a natural "law" if you will.

The only constant in the world is change and progression. But that in itself becomes an "Absolute" in this view, so yes, in a sense, there are "absolutes"- they are the natural laws and natural laws as we understand them now, are the laws of change.

It is the old sectarian, and Enlightenment positions we must reject as obsolete. We live in a quantum world for now, and even that itself will change in time, to something we cannot now even imagine.

Edited November 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

Freedom,

Better be careful with that Victor Stenger fellow. He is the undoubtedly evil scientist who wrote "God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist".

And, just by way of comment, your conecpt of what makes good science, as expressed in the above post # 64, again demonstrates that you have no clue about science or how it works.

I would suggest that whatever time you have to devote to reading about science might be better spent reading something like the above named book by Stenger. At least then you might understand that the supernatural has no place in science. None whatsoever. Period.

I have read both the books and enjoyed them both. The opening paragraph of 'Timeless Reality' sums up my argument I think: "Scientists do not speak with one mind on the matter. They, and the philosophers who study science, have not reached anything approaching consensus on the nature of reality revealed by science, or even if any has been revealed". That comments stands in stark contrast to your perception of what science has achieved. Thus, I was not commenting on the scientific method but rather your perception of the scientific method.

It seems that you reject anything you do not understand which is unfortunate because you have, in the examples that you posted, a lot of misconceptions. That is, you do not seem to understand how to apply the scientific method in your arguments. You take what the unqualified critics say (According to LDS doctrine, the natives of north and south america are hebrew) and compare this to what the scholars say (some of the native groups of north america have genetic markers also found in parts of Asia) and you believe you have proven the church false. From what I have read about the ancient Mayans (who were not the Nephites according to the models put forward for the past 30 years by the apologists by the way) and the Olmecs, for example, I find remarkable similarities with what is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Does some of what is known of God seem to contradict the results of scientific experiments? Certainly. However, this was the state we found ourselves in with the speed of light between the Michelsom-Morley experiments (the speed of light is constant regardless of the state of motion of the observer) and Einstein's theory of special relativity. And there are still many observable behaviors that seem to contradict the current theories. This is why we have the emergence of VSL among other models. I also find it interesting that many of the new concepts, such as string theory, fit quite well with what we understand as the nature of God.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion but I suggest you learn the facts first. But I am always left to wonder, if you are so opposed to the church, why are you wasting your time here? You are not going to gain any converts with your poorly thought out criticisms. Usually people stick around because deep down they cannot reject it. When I broke up with a girlfriend I did not continue to take her out, spending my time with her criticizing her for all the reasons I broke up with her in the first place. When I quite a job, I didn't continue to hang out in the lunch room and list off all the reasons I hated the company. I gleefully moved on. People like you just can't seem to let go, and judging from the responses you are getting from other members here, everybody seems to be in agreement that you have missed the mark.

[Mariner]

Freedom,

Thank you for a thoughtful response. In return I will try to provide a measured response to some of your claims and some of those of mfbukowski.

First to the claims that folks like you, BCSpace and mfbukowski make to the effect that Mormonism is not in conflict with science, or when it is, that it is science that has it wrong. For example, both you and BCSpace have made the claim that string theory somehow supports Mormon beliefs or Kolob cosmology. Statements like this are absolutely wrong. They are not supported by the facts. BCspace has demonstrated elsewhere that he has no clue about string theory (or any other aspect of science as far as I can tell) and I would guess that the same goes for you.

A statement by Leonard Susskind was put forth earlier by mfbukowski in support of your misguided ideas about science and Mormonism. Prof. Susskind is a leading theoretical physicist who has stated that science may never understand reality in a complete or deepest possible sense. These kinds of statements, even if true, do not validate the belief of many Mormons such as yourself that scientific understanding will eventually move in the direction of Mormonism or Kolob cosmology.

I find it ironic that mfbutowski would quote Leonard Susskind in this regard when Susskind has gone on record many times saying that he does not believe in the supernatural, does not believe in God or intelligent design, and certainly does not interpret the physical data available to even allow for the supernatural. In other words, Susskind would definitely NOT agree with your hypothesis that science will eventually come around to support Mormonism and Kolob cosmology. (In case you think I am being too hard on Kolob cosmology, please see the "Joseph Smith as a visionary" thread.)

I personally find it offensive that you would state, as you have, that science does not know enough about space and time to determine when the supernatural beings of Mormonism would have been violating physical laws had they really existed and been floating in the air and flying back and forth to the vicinity of Kolob a faster than light speed. Such statements show a very poor understanding of science and how it works and you should be embarrassed to even make such a statement. Even though I provided a concrete explanation by example of how well we do understand space and time in 2011, you apparently did not understand, because here you are again.

As to the issue of why I participate on an LDS board, it is because I see LDS theology, as interpreted by you and others, as a direct, misguided and wrongheaded attack on my profession. Mormons would be seen as more honest about things if they simply said, like so many other religionists, that they believe in their scriptures rather than in science. Instead, many of them, like yourself, try to redefine, twist, ignore and misinterpret science to fit their personal beliefs. Then they come onto public forums and preach these twisted ideas to others.

There is a reason why there are no Mormon Nobel Prize winners. There is a reason why Mormons and Mormon institutions of higher learning are severely under represented (or not represented at all) in the National Academy of Sciences. And the reason is that Mormonism and Mormon culture is toxic to science.

The problem here is not religion in general. Witness the fact that of the 14 million Jews in the world there are hundreds of Nobel Prize winners. Of the claimed 14 million Mormons in the world, there are exactly none.

So, I hope before you or BCSpace or mfbutowski or others of the faithful come out with more unsupported and patently ridiculous claims that Mormonism and science are in perfect harmony, except for where science has it wron,g that you will realize that some reading this board find such claims first laughable, and then deeply offensive.

[mfbukowski]

I find it ironic that mfbutowski would quote Leonard Susskind in this regard when Susskind has gone on record many times saying that he does not believe in the supernatural, does not believe in God or intelligent design, and certainly does not interpret the physical data available to even allow for the supernatural. In other words, Susskind would definitely NOT agree with your hypothesis that science will eventually come around to support Mormonism and Kolob cosmology. (In case you think I am being too hard on Kolob cosmology, please see the "Joseph Smith as a visionary" thread.)

This is so off base that it is hardly worth a response. Kolob cosmology has nothing to do with science- it is about symbols for spiritual ideas you will never understand.

And of course Susskind is an atheist. He thinks religion is about what is objectively observable just as you do.

It is not.

This is like criticizing a wrench for not being a screwdriver. Would you respond to someone who said something like "It has clearly been shown that wrenches simply will not remove screws"?

What would you say to someone like that?

[Nathair/|\]

To what continued revelation are you referring?

Have we not seen statements on this thread to the effect that the Church has no real position on evolution or the age of the Earth? The Church leaders can't seem to tell faithful members where the Nephites and Lamanites lived, or whether or not the flood of Noah was global.

Science knows the answers to these questions and understands the answers in some detail. Most importantly, that understanding is based on evidence.

If the Church leaders were receiving continued revelation from God, wouldn't you think that He could at least help them get these fundamental issues sorted out?

The unfounded and evidence-free stories and excuses that my seminary and institute teachers came up with to explain away or justify the indefensible claims of Mormonism are no better and no worse that those of today's apologists, who still seem hard pressed at times to come up with explanations of, and defense for, some of the pronouncements made by the leaders of the Church.

What does "evolution or the age of the Earth;" or " where the Nephites and Lamanites lived, or whether or not the flood of Noah was global" have to do with "bring[ing] to pass the...eternal life of man?"

[Freedom]

I think you need to add 'superfluous' to your vocabulary. I think that, fundamentally, you have a lot of pent up anger and you feel a need to self medicate by ranting on this board. Our comments about science and doctrine were concerning your outlandish claims. I don't believe anybody here has ever stated that there is no conflict, just conflicts with your misconceptions. Your notion of dna proving that the Book of Mormons is false, your notion that God lives at or near Kolob, your notion that doctrines have changes dramatically over the past few decades, your notion that we have a clear understanding of time and space. I like, by the way, how you dismiss the quotes because those giving them are atheists. You don't refute their quotes, which contradict your claims, you just want us to put them aside because they do not follow our religious philosophy. I am not a scientist and judging from your remarks I highly doubt you are either. As for mormon institutions being represented on national science councils you need to understand the type of institution BYU is. It is not known for its science department, it is more focused on liberal arts, agriculture, engineering, business and law. The other campuses are junior colleges and do not support programs beyond bachelor degrees. So, no, they are not represented on science councils. This comment of yours again demonstrates your ignorance of academia.

I have never followed LDS scientists, I do not read an academic book based on a persons religion so I can't comment on your claims or how relevant they may be but your conclusions about mormonism and science are ignorant. Be aware, by the way, that those jewish nobel prize winners also believe in the supernatural so that really puts a damper on your theory that people believe in God are scientifically stunted.

[altersteve]

Freedom,

Thank you for a thoughtful response. In return I will try to provide a measured response to some of your claims and some of those of mfbukowski.

First to the claims that folks like you, BCSpace and mfbukowski make to the effect that Mormonism is not in conflict with science, or when it is, that it is science that has it wrong. For example, both you and BCSpace have made the claim that string theory somehow supports Mormon beliefs or Kolob cosmology. Statements like this are absolutely wrong. They are not supported by the facts. BCspace has demonstrated elsewhere that he has no clue about string theory (or any other aspect of science as far as I can tell) and I would guess that the same goes for you.

A statement by Leonard Susskind was put forth earlier by mfbukowski in support of your misguided ideas about science and Mormonism. Prof. Susskind is a leading theoretical physicist who has stated that science may never understand reality in a complete or deepest possible sense. These kinds of statements, even if true, do not validate the belief of many Mormons such as yourself that scientific understanding will eventually move in the direction of Mormonism or Kolob cosmology.

I find it ironic that mfbutowski would quote Leonard Susskind in this regard when Susskind has gone on record many times saying that he does not believe in the supernatural, does not believe in God or intelligent design, and certainly does not interpret the physical data available to even allow for the supernatural. In other words, Susskind would definitely NOT agree with your hypothesis that science will eventually come around to support Mormonism and Kolob cosmology. (In case you think I am being too hard on Kolob cosmology, please see the "Joseph Smith as a visionary" thread.)

I personally find it offensive that you would state, as you have, that science does not know enough about space and time to determine when the supernatural beings of Mormonism would have been violating physical laws had they really existed and been floating in the air and flying back and forth to the vicinity of Kolob a faster than light speed. Such statements show a very poor understanding of science and how it works and you should be embarrassed to even make such a statement. Even though I provided a concrete explanation by example of how well we do understand space and time in 2011, you apparently did not understand, because here you are again.

As to the issue of why I participate on an LDS board, it is because I see LDS theology, as interpreted by you and others, as a direct, misguided and wrongheaded attack on my profession. Mormons would be seen as more honest about things if they simply said, like so many other religionists, that they believe in their scriptures rather than in science. Instead, many of them, like yourself, try to redefine, twist, ignore and misinterpret science to fit their personal beliefs. Then they come onto public forums and preach these twisted ideas to others.

There is a reason why there are no Mormon Nobel Prize winners. There is a reason why Mormons and Mormon institutions of higher learning are severely under represented (or not represented at all) in the National Academy of Sciences. And the reason is that Mormonism and Mormon culture is toxic to science.

The problem here is not religion in general. Witness the fact that of the 14 million Jews in the world there are hundreds of Nobel Prize winners. Of the claimed 14 million Mormons in the world, there are exactly none.

So, I hope before you or BCSpace or mfbutowski or others of the faithful come out with more unsupported and patently ridiculous claims that Mormonism and science are in perfect harmony, except for where science has it wron,g that you will realize that some reading this board find such claims first laughable, and then deeply offensive.

How about instead of pointing out all the ridiculous logical fallacies in this useless post, I'll let you find them yourself.

[BCSpace]

I don't believe anybody here has ever stated that there is no conflict

The OP (me) has and continues to do so. I think it goes to the roots of our fundamental truth claims. LDS doctrine cannot and will not be in conflict with science.

For example, both you and BCSpace have made the claim that string theory somehow supports Mormon beliefs or Kolob cosmology

I have never made this claim. String Theory is not even a theory. No one's been able to come up with a way to test it yet and therefore it is merely a philosophy; admittedly an attractive one for me.

BCspace has demonstrated elsewhere that he has no clue about string theory

Examples? I once helped design the Quantum Mechanics physics class for a college. But that is just a logical fallacy (argument from authority) I guess.

So, I hope before you or BCSpace or mfbutowski or others of the faithful come out with more unsupported and patently ridiculous claims that Mormonism and science are in perfect harmony

Interesting because there are indeed TBMs who agree that science is mostly junk (usually when the subject of evolution is brought up). But not two Sundays ago I stood up and claimed that there is no conflict. It is impossible for there to be conflict if our doctrine is true. We accept all truth and that includes the scientific. I'd be willing to bet that where you think there is a conflict, there is only the condition of not enough data to reach a conclusion.

[BCSpace]

Some concepts of God seem to contradict the laws of physics, but there are many aspects of the natural word that also seem to contradict the laws of physics. If we leave god behind, we might as well do the same with time and space. If we cannot explain it, the arguement goes, we must abandon it. I am sorry, but that is not good science.

Amen! No one would be doing any science at all if the unexplainable was always dismissed.

Edited November 23, 2011 by BCSpace

[Freedom]

The OP (me) has and continues to do so. I think it goes to the roots of our fundamental truth claims. LDS doctrine cannot and will not be in conflict with science.

What I meant to say was scientific theories rather than science, but more to the point there was no conflict with science in reference to the points he was bringing up. But of course since you have not received a nobel prize in physics you must be a mormon hack so your opinions are not of value to me.

[Mariner]

I think you need to add 'superfluous' to your vocabulary. I think that, fundamentally, you have a lot of pent up anger and you feel a need to self medicate by ranting on this board. Our comments about science and doctrine were concerning your outlandish claims. I don't believe anybody here has ever stated that there is no conflict, just conflicts with your misconceptions. Your notion of dna proving that the Book of Mormons is false, your notion that God lives at or near Kolob, your notion that doctrines have changes dramatically over the past few decades, your notion that we have a clear understanding of time and space. I like, by the way, how you dismiss the quotes because those giving them are atheists. You don't refute their quotes, which contradict your claims, you just want us to put them aside because they do not follow our religious philosophy. I am not a scientist and judging from your remarks I highly doubt you are either. As for mormon institutions being represented on national science councils you need to understand the type of institution BYU is. It is not known for its science department, it is more focused on liberal arts, agriculture, engineering, business and law. The other campuses are junior colleges and do not support programs beyond bachelor degrees. So, no, they are not represented on science councils. This comment of yours again demonstrates your ignorance of academia.

I have never followed LDS scientists, I do not read an academic book based on a persons religion so I can't comment on your claims or how relevant they may be but your conclusions about mormonism and science are ignorant. Be aware, by the way, that those jewish nobel prize winners also believe in the supernatural so that really puts a damper on your theory that people believe in God are scientifically stunted.

Why am I not surprised that you would claim that I am not really a professional scientist? Attacking the credibility of those who cite facts in disagreement is a hallmark of LDS apologetic behavior. It is an often used tactic that seems to allow the apologists to disregard what is said and concentrate attention instead on the individual who is saying it. The fact that you do not know anything about who is saying it seems to be beside the point.

Tell you what. When you can point out something that I have said on this thread, or any other thread, that is not in accordance with mainstream science, then come back and let me know that you have evidence that I am a liar. Like so many other of your stated beliefs, it would seem that you are calling me a liar based on what you feel rather than from evidence. A word of caution though, it would be best not to rely on your knowledge of science to make your determination of whether something I have said is factually right or wrong. Remember, we are not talking about opinion here, but fact.

As to your comment about Jews believing in the supernatural, I would point out that many of the Jewish Nobel Prize winners, including Albert Einstein, are and were secular Jews. In any case, what does the religious beliefs of Jews have to do with the fact that Mormons are absent from the ranks of the Nobel Prize winners and nearly so in the top echelons of science?

Edited November 23, 2011 by Mariner

[LeSellers]

"Science" (from the Latin scientia, "knowledge") is, in spite of what some claim for (or of) it, not "knowledge", per se, but a search for knowledge. I liken it to all the potential paths on the surface of a sphere (or any other three-dimensional object) whose "south pole" is "ignorance" and whose "north pole" (the goal) is "knowledge". (It's a metaphor. Don't push it beyond its limits).

"Religion", continuing the metaphor, is all potential paths through the interior of the sphere, beginning at the same point and with the same goal. Revealed religion is the straight-line path from ignorance to knowledge, but it is not an instantaneous journey.

All have the same goal. Each path may, eventually, lead to knowledge, but the in the first two cases, adhenrents limit themselves to self-selected roads.

"Scientists" often believe there is nothing inside the sphere, that they are on a plane. Religionists may (or may not) acknowledge the surface. Those whose path is revealed religion know that the surface is as real as the interior, and that their goal is on the surface. They accept that any one of the three paths could result in success: the attainment of knowledge, but they know theirs is the shortest, least error-prone path. The problem they face is staying on it, because there are a myriad of forces working on them (some from other truth-seekers) to go abandon the way, those calling "Lo! Here!" and "Lo! There!" Once they wander into strange paths, it is difficult to get back on the strait and narrow Way.

Lehi

[Mariner]

"Science" (from the Latin scientia, "knowledge") is, in spite of what some claim for (or of) it, not "knowledge", per se, but a search for knowledge. I liken it to all the potential paths on the surface of a sphere (or any other three-dimensional object) whose "south pole" is "ignorance" and whose "north pole" (the goal) is "knowledge". (It's a metaphor. Don't push it beyond its limits).

"Religion", continuing the metaphor, is all potential paths through the interior of the sphere, beginning at the same point and with the same goal. Revealed religion is the straight-line path from ignorance to knowledge, but it is not an instantaneous journey.

All have the same goal. Each path may, eventually, lead to knowledge, but the in the first two cases, adhenrents limit themselves to self-selected roads.

"Scientists" often believe there is nothing inside the sphere, that they are on a plane. Religionists may (or may not) acknowledge the surface. Those whose path is revealed religion know that the surface is as real as the interior, and that their goal is on the surface. They accept that any one of the three paths could result in success: the attainment of knowledge, but they know theirs is the shortest, least error-prone path. The problem they face is staying on it, because there are a myriad of forces working on them (some from other truth-seekers) to go abandon the way, those calling "Lo! Here!" and "Lo! There!" Once they wander into strange paths, it is difficult to get back on the strait and narrow Way.

Lehi

Instead of treating us to your personal philosophy and metaphors, why not just state and acknowledge the real fundamental difference between science and religion?

Science is the search for and accumulation of knowledge and understanding of the real world based on reproducible physical evidence and obtained by observation, experimentation, hypotheses generation and hypothesis testing.

Religion is the unfounded belief that one can understand the world based on feelings and faith and is comprised of a set of superstitions often maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If you think I am being unfair or biased, here are the definitions for each from a standard dictionary:

Religion:

• The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
  
• Details of belief as taught or discussed
  

Science:

1. the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2. a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

Edited November 23, 2011 by Mariner

[mfbukowski]

Religion is the unfounded belief that one can understand the world based on feelings and faith and is comprised of a set of superstitions often maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

See this is where you go totally wrong. Religion is about creating meaning in one's life. It has nothing to do with understanding the world, but understanding ourselves. That is especially true of Mormonism, where God is man. Mormonism is about a symbolic understanding the highest aspirations of mankind and giving our lives a focus to make ourselves better humans.

As long as you don't understand that, you are wasting your time in this thread, again, as I said before.

You still think a wrench is a screwdriver.

This will be my last post here to you unless you say something substantive.

Edited November 23, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

A word of caution though, it would be best not to rely on your knowledge of science to make your determination of whether something I have said is factually right or wrong. Remember, we are not talking about opinion here, but fact.

Shall list them once more?

You claim that DNA has proven the book of mormon of false, your claim about the language and culture of the Olmecs, your claim about mormon scientists (yes, if you are making your claims on fact, please provide the pear reviewed paper that proves this outrageous 'fact'), your claim that science has a very clear understanding of the workings of time and space, your claim that there have been numerous changes to lds doctrines over the past few decades. Need I go on? I am not calling you a lair, I am pointing out that you are uninformed. The degree of your ignorance obviously leads me, and likely the others responding to your comments, to get the impression that you have a very limited background in academics. Besides, you are doing to us what you are accusing us of doing to you. You continually accuse us of being ignorant of the established theories and ignorant of the scientific method but you seem incapable of explaining why we are as such. You consistently fail to provide any support for you 'scientific method' and continually attempt to dismiss the evidence I provide with superfluous complaints. I have provided quotes from noted scientists that resolutely disagree with your assessment of what science knows and does not know. Do you have any actual scientific evidence that nobel prize winners are by and large secular? What scientific evidence do you have that, as you state it, "Religion is the unfounded belief that one can understand the world based on feelings and faith and is comprised of a set of superstitions often maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary"? This statement alone demonstrates your handicap. I don't know why I keep responding, you keep talking in circles and contradicting your self. You continually bring up arguments that are unsupportable. You continually fail to respond to any of my questions.

So, lets make it very simple. Lets take the issues one at a time.

Please provide your evidence that the 'hundreds' of jewish Nobel prize winners in the sciences are secular and do not believe in what you term as the supernatural. Please also provide a distinction between the religion and the cultural heritage. You seem to imply that the 'hundreds' of jews are all part of the religion of Judaism.

Please include in your response an explanation of the following quotes that appear to contradict your argument about true scientists in general:

“The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” Einstein

“Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter - the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” Max Planck, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics.

[Mariner]

See this is where you go totally wrong. Religion is about creating meaning in one's life. It has nothing to do with understanding the world, but understanding ourselves. That is especially true of Mormonism, where God is man. Mormonism is about a symbolic understanding the highest aspirations of mankind and giving our lives a focus to make ourselves better humans.

As long as you don't understand that, you are wasting your time in this thread, again, as I said before.

You still think a wrench is a screwdriver.

This will be my last post here to you unless you say something substantive.

It seems that your participation in the thread is mainly for the purpose of proclaiming your personal definitions of well known terms and relating your personal philosophies to others. Whether or not you continue to do so is your choice and has nothing to do with me.

[Freedom]

It seems that your participation in the thread is mainly for the purpose of proclaiming your personal definitions of well known terms and relating your personal philosophies to others. Whether or not you continue to do so is your choice and has nothing to do with me.

You continue to astound us with your bazaar logic. Your dictionary definition states the following:

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Your personal definition of well known terms states the following

"Religion is the unfounded belief that one can understand the world based on feelings and faith and is comprised of a set of superstitions often maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

If you cannot see the hypocrisy in your argument then you can continue on blindly while we each laugh at you in our turn. Religion is not about understanding the world but a belief in God. Your own definition shows how you continually contradict yourself and demonstrate a profound inability to use logic in your reasoning. You do not even understand your own source material be it ever so easy to read. If you would just proof read your posts you would safe yourself a lot if embarrassment. Every response you offer is replete with faulty logic and contradictions.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Freedom

[Mariner]

You continue to astound us with your bazaar logic. Your dictionary definition states the following:

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Your personal definition of well known terms states the following

"Religion is the unfounded belief that one can understand the world based on feelings and faith and is comprised of a set of superstitions often maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

If you cannot see the hypocrisy in your argument then you can continue on blindly while we each laugh at you in our turn. Religion is not about understanding the world but a belief in God. Your own definition shows how you continually contradict yourself and demonstrate a profound inability to use logic in your reasoning. You do not even understand your own source material be it ever so easy to read. If you would just proof read your posts you would safe yourself a lot if embarrassment. Every response you offer is replete with faulty logic and contradictions.

Here are two additional dictionary definitions to consider before you label my definition of religion as inaccurate or hypocritical..

Here is the first definition for you:

Superstition is a belief in a non-physical (i.e., supernatural) causality)

Here is another definition for you:

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (i.e. unfounded belief)

[Mariner]

Shall list them once more?

You claim that DNA has proven the book of mormon of false, your claim about the language and culture of the Olmecs, your claim about mormon scientists (yes, if you are making your claims on fact, please provide the pear reviewed paper that proves this outrageous 'fact'), your claim that science has a very clear understanding of the workings of time and space, your claim that there have been numerous changes to lds doctrines over the past few decades. Need I go on? I am not calling you a lair, I am pointing out that you are uninformed. The degree of your ignorance obviously leads me, and likely the others responding to your comments, to get the impression that you have a very limited background in academics. Besides, you are doing to us what you are accusing us of doing to you. You continually accuse us of being ignorant of the established theories and ignorant of the scientific method but you seem incapable of explaining why we are as such. You consistently fail to provide any support for you 'scientific method' and continually attempt to dismiss the evidence I provide with superfluous complaints. I have provided quotes from noted scientists that resolutely disagree with your assessment of what science knows and does not know. Do you have any actual scientific evidence that nobel prize winners are by and large secular? What scientific evidence do you have that, as you state it, "Religion is the unfounded belief that one can understand the world based on feelings and faith and is comprised of a set of superstitions often maintained in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary"? This statement alone demonstrates your handicap. I don't know why I keep responding, you keep talking in circles and contradicting your self. You continually bring up arguments that are unsupportable. You continually fail to respond to any of my questions.

So, lets make it very simple. Lets take the issues one at a time.

Please provide your evidence that the 'hundreds' of jewish Nobel prize winners in the sciences are secular and do not believe in what you term as the supernatural. Please also provide a distinction between the religion and the cultural heritage. You seem to imply that the 'hundreds' of jews are all part of the religion of Judaism.

Please include in your response an explanation of the following quotes that appear to contradict your argument about true scientists in general:

“The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” Einstein

“Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter - the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” Max Planck, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics.

Freedom,

As a Mormon defending flying beings of flesh and bone, Kolob cosmology, lost civilizations, reformed Egyptian, golden books, obviously fraudulent "translations" of extant papyri and all the rest of it, you need to understand that you are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are therefore the one who needs to provide the extraordinary proof.

I have stated the considered viewpoint of mainstream science in each of these matters. Since you are the one making the extraordinary claims, do you think you could find a single credible non-LDS scientist who is published in the peer review literature who will state a belief, based on the evidence, that:

A Jaredite civilization of more than a million individuals developed in the new world as the offspring of some two dozen people from the Middle East who made a transoceanic migration to the new world in unpowered wooden semisubmersibles on a journey of more than 300 days.

The Earth was originally created near Kolob and was moved to its present orbit after the Fall of Adam.

The Book of Abraham is a translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, or indeed that any papyri that contained the Book of Breathings or Breathing Permit could also contain passages written by the hand of Abraham who was reputed to live 2000 years before the papyri came into existence.

That flying anthropomorphic beings are doing do in accordance with natural law even though they have no external means of propulsion.

Again, given these extraordinary claims, I am not asking for much in the way of physical evidence.

As to your quotes from early 20th Century scientists, I fail to see why they are even relevant to the discussion about Mormons and science.

What is relevant is that there are no Mormon Nobel Prize winners, and (as far as I can tell although I have not checked out all 4000 or so members) no Mormons in the National Academy of sciences, 93% of whom in a recent poll stated that they did not believe in a supernatural God.

________________

BTW: Your quoting of Albert Einstein leaves one with the impression that you believe he was a theist.

Can that be right?

Are you serious?

[Freedom]

Here are two additional dictionary definitions to consider before you label my definition of religion as inaccurate or hypocritical..

Here is the first definition for you:

Superstition is a belief in a non-physical (i.e., supernatural) causality)

Here is another definition for you:

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (i.e. unfounded belief)

Yes, as is typical, you completely avoided the issue by changing the topic. Your definition of religion by your own standards is false. What ever does superstition and faith have to do with understanding the world around us? And are you suggesting that you only base your decision on material evidence? If so, you will never fall in love. Get back to the point of this particular discussion. You have an erroneous definition of religion which is at the root of your faulty paradigm.

[Mariner]

Yes, as is typical, you completely avoided the issue by changing the topic. Your definition of religion by your own standards is false. What ever does superstition and faith have to do with understanding the world around us? And are you suggesting that you only base your decision on material evidence? If so, you will never fall in love. Get back to the point of this particular discussion. You have an erroneous definition of religion which is at the root of your faulty paradigm.

My definition of religion is just fine.

It is based on fact and not faith.

It works well and invariably leads to the right answer when used to make decisions.

I think I will keep it.

[Freedom]

Freedom,

As a Mormon defending flying beings of flesh and bone, Kolob cosmology, lost civilizations, reformed Egyptian, golden books, obviously fraudulent "translations" of extant papyri and all the rest of it, you need to understand that you are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are therefore the one who needs to provide the extraordinary proof.

I have stated the considered viewpoint of mainstream science in each of these matters. Since you are the one making the extraordinary claims, do you think you could find a single credible non-LDS scientist who is published in the peer review literature who will state a belief, based on the evidence, that:

A Jaredite civilization of more than a million individuals developed in the new world as the offspring of some two dozen people from the Middle East who made a transoceanic migration to the new world in unpowered wooden semisubmersibles on a journey of more than 300 days.

The Earth was originally created near Kolob and was moved to its present orbit after the Fall of Adam.

The Book of Abraham is a translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, or indeed that any papyri that contained the Book of Breathings or Breathing Permit could also contain passages written by the hand of Abraham who was reputed to live 2000 years before the papyri came into existence.

That flying anthropomorphic beings are doing do in accordance with natural law even though they have no external means of propulsion.

Again, given these extraordinary claims, I am not asking for much in the way of physical evidence.

As to your quotes from early 20th Century scientists, I fail to see why they are even relevant to the discussion about Mormons and science.

What is relevant is that there are no Mormon Nobel Prize winners, and (as far as I can tell although I have not checked out all 4000 or so members) no Mormons in the National Academy of sciences, 93% of whom in a recent poll stated that they did not believe in a supernatural God.

________________

BTW: Your quoting of Albert Einstein leaves one with the impression that you believe he was a theist.

Can that be right?

Are you serious?

Again, you have completely failed to respond to my question which leads me to believe you have no answer. You simply cannot explain it. And you continue to cling to misconceptions about our doctrine. You seem incapable of logical thought making it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. You know nothing of the Olmecs but you continue to pretend that should be a concern. You know nothing of the 'hundreds' of jewish scientists so you dismiss my quotes because of when they were given. You do not understand what religion is and you prove this by contradicting your own definition, then you go on a tangent about faith and superstition as if this proves your point that religion attempts to explain the world around us. Please read about Einstein. he did believe in God, just not a personal god as I do. You are trying to hide behind semantics. His god was as supernatural as my God. I will give you one more chance but I will give you an easier question because it appears that the previous one gave you a bit of a scare.

Please explain what the current debate is about the Olmec language, what is known of their DNA, and the LDS doctrine that contradicts this research. Please refer to LDS.org for the parameters of what the Church considers sources of doctrine. You need not address the research from Russian geneticists.

[mfbukowski]

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics.

Thanks for that great quote. That is precisely what I have been saying. We are getting some of those silly answers right here and now.

Edited November 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It seems that your participation in the thread is mainly for the purpose of proclaiming your personal definitions of well known terms and relating your personal philosophies to others. Whether or not you continue to do so is your choice and has nothing to do with me.

Go ahead.

Don't engage me. It makes my job easier. I don't have to deal with your misunderstandings, and I can just then comment to those who understand me.

Of course I am not alone. Most postmodernists would agree with me in principle, as well as people like Thomas Kuhn.

Edited November 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LeSellers]

Stephen Hawking, who is, as I understand it, a scientist, is widely quoted as saying, "The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

Hidden in the second sentence, a question, is a nugget of great wisdom. not only is Hawking smart and learned, he displays, at least in this, some wisdom, a characteristic not always present in those who share his smarts and education.

We Saints have an answer to his question which we read in Moses 1:39.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man.

Alas that this scripture was deleted from the Bible!

Lehi