Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[supersnail]

In all seriousness, if I stop a ball in midair or cause it to fall in the first place, my action doesn't contradict gravity science. People who are so enthusiastic about evolution that it becomes an excuse to ridicule religion have gone way beyond what science is claiming. Scientific theories have always applied to particular domains or systems and do not necessarily rule out exogenous actions, simultaneous principles that may work on top of/in addition to the one being focused on, and external entities.

When people talk about how God's creation of the world is in conflict with evolution as if evolutionary theory preluded God's creating of the world, it is possible they themselves have misunderstood evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory offers the *possibility* of an explanation of the origin of humans that does not involve God. What evolutionary theory does not do is rule out God's role.

[thesometimesaint]

Supersnail:

Many atheists have no difficulty with the idea that we--humans, beings with intelligence, technological power, intention, and free will--can intervene in a process to cause something to develop in a lab, even intervene in gene storage and replication. Nobody claims that the notion of human genetic intervention is incompatible with genetics and developmental biology. Yet, somehow when it comes to God, science is supposed to imply a crude materialism and empiricism, and science is viewed as contradicting religious belief in general. The idea that God intervenes in his creation is mocked on the basis that evolutionary theories don't mention him. It is as someone else in this thread suggested: humans are being deified in a way that is inappropriate.

Well, evolution doesn't entail the existence of humans either. A description of evolution could still be complete without mentioning humans at all. There is no conflict between human agency and biological theories, and there is no conflict between God's will and evolution.

The problem with that notion is that here is no common agreement as to what if any "God" is involved in process. Is it the Christian "God", the Jewish "God", the Muslim "God" or is it the pantheon of "Gods" in Hinduism, or the non god State of Nirvana of Buddhism? Further how do we measure what if any effect such a "God(s)" has(have) on the natural world? IOW Would our natural world/universe look any different if God was not involved, and how do we independently measure it?

I'm not mocking it. I just don't know of any nonreligious way of measuring it.

Yes evolution does entail man. We are the only species that we know of that tells its own history. We are part of and the result of the billion plus years of evolution. To put our religion in We are the culmination of Gods' work, his crowing achievement, his Work and his Glory.

Someday there will be that reconciliation, but today probably isn't that day.

Edited July 26, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[supersnail]

The only thing I meant by evolution's not requiring the concept of humans is that evolution no more contradict's God's will and influence that it does humans'.

Watson and Crick didn't always mention humans when explicating their ideas (see paper "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids"), but that doesn't mean the concept of genetic engineering is in conflict with DNA.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't stand or fall depending on questions pertaining to God's role in the appearance of H. sapiens. They aren't in conflict.

Edited July 26, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

Science is about regularities and its edifice is made up of theories about regularities. This is something that some science enthusiasts and certain creationists may not fully realize. Science isn't mainly concerned with validating propositions about single things. Eventually we want to talk about what things have in common and form abstractions. The proposition that humans evolved from another species without God's involvement, either before or during evolution, is a proposition of something other than a scientific nature. Explanations of how animal species in general arise or how the thousands of different mammal species came about are more scientific in nature. Questions like did God have any role in the origin of one species, humans, aren't really addressed by science. Science is about thousands, millions, or septillions of things, not one thing.

Scientific theories pertain to more than one thing. We can use them to explain or predict regularities--things that happen again and again or will happen again, or a series of similar observations. Evolution is relevant to hypothetical life on other planets and millions of species on earth.

Evolution offers the possibility of a naturalistic explanation of the existence of humans, but it doesn't entail the appearance of humans. In strictly scientific terms, the evolution of life on earth could have turned out different. Despite what some fans of Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher might think, few atheist evolutionary biologists would actually claim that if the clock were turned back and evolution on earth started over, the human species would necessarily emerge. Natural selection is non-random, but evolution still involves stochastic processes (such as genetic drift and mutation), and the appearance of Homo sapiens wasn't inevitable in purely scientific terms. Natural speciation, for example, as an explanation of the existence of different species is still valid. The truth of it doesn't depend on any one particular species. That also means there is less reason to believe evolution ideas contradict religious beliefs about one species.

And because evolution does involve stochastic processes and stochastic processes by definition aren't deterministic, there is room for God's influence to be exerted without a supernatural appearance, and science will never be able to rule out that influence. So, while there may be no way to scientifically "measure" God's influence, there may be no way to disprove it. I don't understand why God's influence has to be measured by scientific means for people to accept that Mormonism isn't incompatible with science.

Edited July 26, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

My attitude to things like the mention of "horses" in the Book of Mormon is "big deal." Does it have any relevance whatsoever to equine sciences or the evolution of the genus Equus in general? No. There is no evidence that the scripture verses involved have negatively impacted anyone's reception of horse-related science.

[Carborendum]

Are they compatible? Is truth compatible with truth?

The problem comes when there is FALSE science. There are aspects of evolution which accurately describe the past. And there are aspects which do NOT accurately describe the past. We embrace the true elements of it, while denying the false aspects of it.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Oh! That's right. You've got a religious devotion to a non-religion that states all aspects of evolution as described by Richard Dawkins, et. al., is gospel. And wo be unto them who deny such! For great shall be their suffering if they should do so. Yea, they shall be thrust down to destruction on this earth, the only life we will ever know. Praise be Darwin for granting us this never lasting knowledge of nihilism and basis for eugenics. Yea, may speedy destruction come upon those of weaker genes for such shall nature put down into the early grave.

[Freedom]

It is not possible to understand the universe by observing it through a telescope, and it is not possible to understand the origin of life by observing what is left behind. A doctor cannot look at a person and determine their blood type or the name of the bacteria that is causing their sore throat. It is profoundly arrogant of anybody to think that science has proven God is not involved. Our descendants will look back at our time and laugh at how far off we were on many points both in terms of science and in terms of peripheral doctrines. There are few doctrines that are challenged by science. Most, it seems, are not doctrines at all but popular interpretations of the scriptures that may or may not be justified. Those that are challenged by science are not resolutely deconstructed. the speed of light is an example.

Science has been a powerful cleanser of false dogma, and has removed many shackles that lets us return to the purpose of religion: serving others, and receiving ordinances. How the earth came to be should never have been part of the church curriculum.

[Calm]

Comparing macro evolution theory with gravity is apples and oranges.

I think the above works better with "oranges and apples".

[thesometimesaint]

Supersnail:

Science by definition can't enlist God in it's service. But scientists are free to believe or not believe as they so choose.

[thesometimesaint]

Carborendum:

Praise be Darwin for granting us this never lasting knowledge of nihilism and basis for eugenics. Yea, may speedy destruction come upon those of weaker genes for such shall nature put down into the early grave.

Darwin would have been affronted by that suggestion.

Edited July 27, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Freedom]

Supersnail:

Science by definition can't enlist God in it's service. But scientists are free to believe or not believe as they so choose.

To clarify that, science by definition cannot enlist un-observable hypothesis in it's service. Some scientists, however, arrogantly assume that if it cannot be observed then it does not exist. This handicap does not just apply to religions concepts, but the wholesale rejection of very compelling arguments by legitimate scientists to explain existing apparent contradictions in nature. The rhetorical battle against theoretical physicists, for example, seems to be as heated as the battle against Mormons and Muslims.

[supersnail]

Science has been a powerful cleanser of false dogma, and has removed many shackles that lets us return to the purpose of religion: serving others, and receiving ordinances. How the earth came to be should never have been part of the church curriculum.

Jesus created it. That is the main point. And those acting like the Book of Moses should mention natural selection and speciation appear to miss that point.

The Book of Moses does mention "millions of earths", which seems to be supported by recent telescope data indicating tens of *billions* of galaxies, but the Book of Moses doesn't contain a scientific theory regarding those. Nor should we expect it to, for various reasons.

Edited July 28, 2012 by supersnail

[supersnail]

To clarify that, science by definition cannot enlist un-observable hypothesis in it's service. Some scientists, however, arrogantly assume that if it cannot be observed then it does not exist. This handicap does not just apply to religions concepts, but the wholesale rejection of very compelling arguments by legitimate scientists to explain existing apparent contradictions in nature. The rhetorical battle against theoretical physicists, for example, seems to be as heated as the battle against Mormons and Muslims.

The irony of the satirical "intelligent falling" Onion article is that many people who enjoy such cheap shots against religions, including both Evangelicalism and Mormonism, would probably believe what was claimed in the OP: that Mormonism is incompatible with science because evolution internally "just happens"--which is as every bit as untenable as saying that either gravitational theories or Mormonism must be false because gravitational theories don't specify God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as factors. But as the Onion article actually accurately alludes to, there *is* a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

There is more contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics than there is between Mormonism and, say, quantum mechanics, and Newtonian gravity incorporates quantum mechanics no more than Darwinian evolutionary theory incorporates the specific claims of theology. Nobody in their right mind would take the nihilist attitude that gravitational theory is therefore altogether false, but there is more reason to believe there is a conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics than there is to believe in a conflict between Mormonism and any gravity theory. There are circumstances in which general relativity and quantum mechanics make claims that are clearly contradictory, but Mormonism makes no claim about gravity. I dare someone to make some crack about the Ascension; they would only be revealing their own ignorance about the same science and philosophy issues already discussed. Many atheists and their followers love to talk about how stupid Christians, Muslims etc. supposedly are, but they reveal their own ignorance about the nature and scope of scientific claims. It is apparent that one can be educated and convinced of the superiority of one's own knowledge of and attitude toward science, but make mistakes about the proper domain of scientific theories.

Newtonian gravity and general relativity make competing claims in the same area. They are each true enough in the appropriate setting. They are each useful (like evolutionary theory may be regardless of whether Young Earth creationism is true). Each has empirical validity, but they are, though internally consistent, theoretically inconsistent or different, and partial descriptions of reality. It is puzzling that one can accept both Newtonian gravity and general relativity, but delude oneself that religion and science are in general in conflict because of one principle or process--evolution--that usually doesn't pretend to a complete description of reality in the first place.

Edited July 28, 2012 by supersnail

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

The Onion is a spoof. Do I take them seriously? Not for a second, but I'm sure some do. I find the ability to laugh at myself one of the few saving graces I have. That Hobbits don't exist, except in the imagination, doesn't for a second make the quest of Frodo and Sam any less "real" in describing the human condition.

Without going into the weeds of each of these scientific theories. Let's just stipulate that. Do Newton's theories more accurately describe the motion of bodies better than Aristotle? Yes it does. Do Einstein's theories more accurately describe space and time better than Newton? Yes it does. Does Quantum Mechanics more accurately describe the very small better that Einstein? Yes it does.

Same as with the area of religion. Does Mormonism better describe what is needed for Salvation than other forms of Christianity? IMNTBHO Yes it does. Do other forms of Christianity better describe what is needed for Salvation than the Muslim religion? Again IMNTBHO Yes it does. Does the Muslim religion better describe what is needed for Salvation better Paganism? IMNTBHO Yes it does.

Will here at someday be a reconciliation between religion and science. I sincerely believe so, but today probably isn't that day.

[cinepro]

To clarify that, science by definition cannot enlist un-observable hypothesis in it's service. Some scientists, however, arrogantly assume that if it cannot be observed then it does not exist.

I've never heard of a scientist who assumed that "if it cannot be observed then it does not exist." I've only met scientists who assumed that there had to be a better reason to believe something than someone just sayin' it.

[supersnail]

I knew what The Onion was (enough that I wouldn't be surprised if there were an article satirizing atheists) and knew the article was satirical, which I was why I noted that and one of my posts begins with "In all seriousness." The problem is not with The Onion or links to it. The issue is the lazy reasoning people use to say that Mormonism is incompatible with science that nobody would ever use to say that human interventions in nature are in conflict with science. Taken to their logical conclusion, such reasoning would lead to ridiculous ideas about religion and gravity, for example. Like I said, the Onion article is ironic because some atheists who would get a laugh out of it have ideas leading to equally laughable ideas about some inconsistency between theology and scientific evolutionary theory. The way some atheists (or atheists in the making) present evolutionary theory is actually not scientific.

[Carborendum]

I've never heard of a scientist who assumed that "if it cannot be observed then it does not exist." I've only met scientists who assumed that there had to be a better reason to believe something than someone just sayin' it.

Stephen Hawking essentially says that (if you can't see it, it doesn't exist) in his "A Brief History of the Universe".

Einstein, with regard to his theory of relativity, was asked,"Is it really that way, or does it that just the way we perceive it?"

His response,"What is reality? Reality is what you measure. If you cannot measure it or its effects on something we know to be real, then it is not real."

People tend to forget what science really is. It is a method. It is a type of epistemology. That is all. Yet atheists view it as the only method of arriving at truth. This is where they fall short.

The scientific method is a great thing. It provides a framework that focuses great minds to achieve great things. But that same power is its great weakness. The focusing of the mind on the method rather than the goal tends to make us believe the method is more important than the goal.This is as irrational as Laman & Lemuel bowing down to worship Nephi when he showed forth some power from God.

Pursuit of truth is the underlying philosophy. Whatever method is simply the road. Finding the truth is the ultimate goal.

Keep your eye on the target, not necessarily the path to it.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Carborendum

[supersnail]

Without going into the weeds of each of these scientific theories. Let's just stipulate that. Do Newton's theories more accurately describe the motion of bodies better than Aristotle? Yes it does. Do Einstein's theories more accurately describe space and time better than Newton? Yes it does. Does Quantum Mechanics more accurately describe the very small better that Einstein? Yes it does.

I understand what you're saying, and agree, but I think we would need to qualify any statement that, say, the theory of general relativity is better than Newton's law of gravitation. (I know that's not what you said, but I can imagine such a statement being made.) Most engineers use Newton's law to make predictions more often than they use general relativity even though they could use general relativity. It's not that general relativity would give less accurate results in some case where Newton's law is used. Newton's law is just better in some cases from the standpoint of keeping things simple or not wanting to waste time. Each is still useful, and general relativity is useful for a larger set of problems. By being used, each is accepted, though general relativity's conception of reality is very different.

They are contradictory, but we have no problem accepting both Newtonian gravity and general relativity, because each is useful. Yet, somehow when it comes to Mormonism and evolution, we are supposed to believe they are in conflict, though they don't even make predictions about the same things. Mormonism has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the utility of evolution as a theory that is actually used.

The so-called conflict between religion and science exists only in the minds of those who have an ideological bias against religion, don't understand the boundaries of scientific claims, or are influenced by the grandiose philosophical pretensions of some scientists overstepping the domains of their theories.

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

I think it is both. Once we exceed the limits of science or religion we enter into dangerous territory.

[supersnail]

supersnail:

I think it is both. Once we exceed the limits of science or religion we enter into dangerous territory.

I agree. I'm just not seeing how that pertains to any scripture or revelation of the LDS Church.

Or is Jesus' resurrection an example of "entering into dangerous territory"?

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

Yes, as science can neither verify nor dismiss Resurrection. What is can do is state there are no accepted natural laws that allow for it.

[supersnail]

I'm a little surprised that you answered yes to my question, but it does help to clarify that the real source of tension isn't the creation story, but Jesus Christ himself.

When the general authorities disclose a revelation purporting to explain in natural terms Jesus Christ's resurrection in a way that actually contradicts a biological/chemical theory so as to put into question what will happen when people undergo fatal asphyxia or shock--or his ascension in a way that contradicts general relativity or another accepted scientific theory--then I will agree dangerous territory has been entered. I don't believe that's going to happen, so the only overstepping worth talking about is the overstepping by the idolaters of scientific theories who claim more truth for those theories than they actually contain.

Edited July 29, 2012 by supersnail

[thesometimesaint]

supersnail:

The Creation story if taken as literal fact has lots of problems that so far haven't been overcome. I'm not sure that those problems can be overcome, at least in this life. But I'm fine with it as the poetry of story telling. It doesn't matter if it is literal fact or not. Its purpose is to tell a story of why the human condition came to be, and ultimately(With the Resurrection) reestablishing our ties to God.

I think that idolatry is found in both religion and science. But I don't worship either. I worship only God.

[mfbukowski]

Stephen Hawking essentially says that (if you can't see it, it doesn't exist) in his "A Brief History of the Universe".

Einstein, with regard to his theory of relativity, was asked,"Is it really that way, or does it that just the way we perceive it?"

His response,"What is reality? Reality is what you measure. If you cannot measure it or its effects on something we know to be real, then it is not real."

People tend to forget what science really is. It is a method. It is a type of epistemology. That is all. Yet atheists view it as the only method of arriving at truth. This is where they fall short.

The scientific method is a great thing. It provides a framework that focuses great minds to achieve great things. But that same power is its great weakness. The focusing of the mind on the method rather than the goal tends to make us believe the method is more important than the goal.This is as irrational as Laman & Lemuel bowing down to worship Nephi when he showed forth some power from God.

Pursuit of truth is the underlying philosophy. Whatever method is simply the road. Finding the truth is the ultimate goal.

Keep your eye on the target, not necessarily the path to it.

The first question comes before all that, and it is defining what "truth" even means. You can't find find something unless you know what you're looking for.

[Fifth Columnist]

The first question comes before all that, and it is defining what "truth" even means. You can't find find something unless you know what you're looking for.

I personally like this definition of "truth."

D&C 93:24

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

Using this definition, the scientific method seems to be, by far, the best method of arriving at truth. In fact, it seems that revealed knowledge is constantly being revised, jettisoned, or declared not to have been revealed in the first place due to objective facts learned through the scientific method. If you think I'm wrong, then please identify any previously unknown objective face that has been given to the world through revelation to Mormon prophets.