Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[supersnail]

Quantum mechanics simply has no need whatsoever of the hypothesis of God, so it won't posit anything about that at all. THAT is the point. Quantum mechanics is not about God, it is about material reality on the sub-atomic level.

I'm glad we've established that quantum mechanics says nothing either for or against the idea of God's influence.

[Ahab]

I'm glad we've established that quantum mechanics says nothing either for or against the idea of God's influence.

If only you could get a little piece of God's DNA to put under a microscope, if you had the right tools to study.

Who knows, maybe Jesus will agree to a little experiment like that for you, or for some other "scientist".

Until then, just keep your eyes open while looking for God.

[ERayR]

If only you could get a little piece of God's DNA to put under a microscope, if you had the right tools to study.

Who knows, maybe Jesus will agree to a little experiment like that for you, or for some other "scientist".

Until then, just keep your eyes open while looking for God.

We have plenty of God's DNA. We are all his children.

[ERayR]

To paraphrase a very wise man - A college advanced education degree never hurt anyone who was half way smart to start with.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I'm glad we've established that quantum mechanics says nothing either for or against the idea of God's influence.

Good grief, there is no God already. In science God is a hypothesis. No qualified and good practicing scientist invoke God for ANYTHING in their search for knowledge. Privately, in their own individual beliefs, yes, there are scientists who believe in God. Science as a discipline will NEVER add the extra hypothesis. Science deals with natural truth, not supernatural hypotheses. It's that simple. Science is Agod. Religion with its faith when they don't know what the hell to think or know adds God due to their ignorance of causes and effects. Science's advance takes away religion's god(s) with the more knowledge that is learned. Science has no reason to even ask about God in any experiment unless it is involved with religion's attempt to tread into scientific grounds, and then ONLY empirical evidence makes the difference, not accepting faith due to not knowing. There is no for or against God in science, because there simply is NO hypothesis of God in science. It would be like saying in science we have to invoke blixon. It is incoherent regardless of what attributes, properties, or beliefs one holds about a hypothetic entity labeled or called Blixon. It simply is not needed to make science work accurately and fully within the bounds of obvious human fallibility.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

If only you could get a little piece of God's DNA to put under a microscope, if you had the right tools to study.

Who knows, maybe Jesus will agree to a little experiment like that for you, or for some other "scientist".

Until then, just keep your eyes open while looking for God.

It is vastly superior to keep your mind open while looking for accurate and real knowledge.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You may not assume such now, but you seem to have done due to your comment that you had been attempting to complete knowledge (through faith) for decades without success. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. My point is that that assuming one could 'complete knowledge' through any method would be a faulty assumption as knowledge will never be complete....which is a wonderful thing to contemplate in my view, means infinite adventures to look forward to.

I agree, it makes for an absolutely wonderful future of ever learning, so long as we don't stop by invoking faith everytime we run into something we don't understand.

[volgadon]

Revealed knowledge is always subjective and never advances our comforts in our world.

My wife's grandmother was a little girl when the Germans occupied her village. She herself was nearly murdered. Small wonder that she hated Germans. Fast forward many decades to when she was baptised and joined the church. The day came for her to be endowed. The nearest temple was, of all places, in Germany. After goinng through the temple, she was filled with love and forgiveness for Germans. The revealed gospel, that is, revealed knowledge, is what taught her to love Germans. Science might have advanced her comfort by discovering the principles that allowed the bus to be built that took her to Germany, but it never taught her how to love and forgive. If anything, science provided the tools which wreaked death and destruction on her village.

[volgadon]

I find it incredibly FASCINATING that even God told Joseph Smith to TEST the spirits, and when he was visited to offer his hand and see if he felt anything, and based on that scientific experimentation, one could tell the verity of the hallucination before one's eyes. THAT is pure science. There is no praying or burning in the bosom description involved here, just pure beautiful factual evidence and science based on action, and experimentation. It is POWERFULLY supported in the D&C, though I can't remember which section its in. The one about hand shaking with visitors from who knows where.

D&C 129 does not allow the possibility of the otherworldly visitor being an hallucination. The test establishes if the visitor is from God or from the Devil, and, if the former, what class of being it is. It is a revelation teaching a rule of conduct God's messengers must follow. So, divine character traits of honesty and integrity, rather than scientific experiment into hallucinations.

[wenglund]

My wife's grandmother was a little girl when the Germans occupied her village. She herself was nearly murdered. Small wonder that she hated Germans. Fast forward many decades to when she was baptised and joined the church. The day came for her to be endowed. The nearest temple was, of all places, in Germany. After goinng through the temple, she was filled with love and forgiveness for Germans. The revealed gospel, that is, revealed knowledge, is what taught her to love Germans. Science might have advanced her comfort by discovering the principles that allowed the bus to be built that took her to Germany, but it never taught her how to love and forgive. If anything, science provided the tools which wreaked death and destruction on her village.

This is so significant as to warrant repeating. Very much appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[supersnail]

And here all this time I thought D&C 76 was about geology.

To the extent that a certain poster has put distance between themselves and their previous positions (without being clear about that), I welcome that and see no reason to correct every single error in what they are now saying or clarify exactly who originally said what.

[zerinus]

Good grief, there is no God already. In science God is a hypothesis. No qualified and good practicing scientist invoke God for ANYTHING in their search for knowledge.

That may be so; but that does not mean that the truths they discover were not given to them by God; and that without His will and spiritual enlightenment they would not have been able to discover them.

[volgadon]

Science works. It's track record is for all to see.

What about all the times science hasn't worked? Discarded theories, I know, but do we sweep them under the carpet?

[zerinus]

I agree, it makes for an absolutely wonderful future of ever learning, so long as we don't stop by invoking faith everytime we run into something we don't understand.

Wouldn't it be great though if we all had the kind of faith that the brother of Jared had, and could know the truth of all things without having to apply the "scientific method". Also, I disagree with you (and calmoriah) that there is an "infinite supply" of knowledge out there to be discovered. The supply is not infinite, and God could reveal them to us if He wanted to (and we were able to bear it).

[ERayR]

What about all the times science hasn't worked? Discarded theories, I know, but do we sweep them under the carpet?

And remember them no more.

[Eldwynn]

I don't expect it anytime soon. But who knows for sure?

I don't go to Sacrament Meeting for my science, but I do go for my soul.

They are all also objective wrong. The purpose of religion is to commune with God, what ever you conceive him/what to be. I've never been a fan of objectivism.

Mormonism allows for the earth to rotate the sun, or any other scientific principle. "Truth is truth no matter where we find it".

Truth Claims are beyond the reach of science. However I'm not an Atheist and will let them make their own arguments.

Just because religion pretends to make truth claims, doesn't mean it really is making them. The scientific method is honest about its limitations. Rarely do religous discussions go in that direction. What are the limits of Jainism in their understanding of the universe?

Furthermore, I will remind you of your own words, since it is you that said them. It seems contradictory to say you don't go to church for science, yet you expect there will be a day when they are compatible.

Notice that you didn't say that we "might" see compatibility. You pretty much guaranteed it. But of course, you just know.

". I accept that someday we will see that compatibility, but today probably isn't that day."

Edited August 2, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Eldwynn]

Even the idea that religion is supposed to do that is just so ridiculous it shows you have no understanding of even what the discussion is about.

I don't see why it could not. I never said it had to. I have heard your reason for believing, and your philosophical assumptions that allows it to be logical. I disagree. I don't find your premises convincing. You might. I don't.

Did the Nephites exist in the americas? That seems like a question science could answer. Is religion supposed to answer things in that way? I would argue that it doesn't because religion doesn't accurately describe our world. You would say it doesn't because it isn't supposed to.

I don't think you get to claim authority on what religion can and can not do.

[Robert F. Smith]

thesometimesaint, on 31 July 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Fifth Columnist:

As far as track record goes the scientific method is no better(or worse) than revealed knowledge. Science by definition is always tentative.

Kerry said:

Oh yes it is. Science being tentative does nothing to erase the knowledge and the obvious fact that IT WORKS. This incorrect thinking has got to be corrected someday. Revealed knowledge is always subjective and never advances our comforts in our world. Religion has always given way and backed away when science discovers yet more truths about how the world and universe works. The two are nowhere near in similarity. Science works. It's track record is for all to see. This is just a silly statement. I mean hey, whether we like it or not, even God's own special witnesses and Apostles and prophets use science for their medicine, not priesthood blessings alone. They use medicine and hospitals with all that technology and other wonderful stuff. They tacitly admit science works. That's the TESTIMONY in ACTION we ought to be seeing.

It does work, and that all by itself shows that the scientific method is by far and away the most powerful way to learn truth and knowledge. There can be no doubt about that once one opens ones eyes and sees the evidence, literally all over the world. In fact, we can see all over the world thanks to science! I'm watching the Olympics on television, which utilizes every law of science that has been discovered. It ain't the Holy Spirit bringing this knowledge to us all over the world, it is pure scientific technology. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the scientific method for showing us actuality in our universe.

You seem powerfully wedded to scientism, which is the religious notion that science has all the answers, and that there is nothing else. You simultaneously confuse technology with science, failing to understand that God gave you a brain and expects you to use it -- inventing fire, tools, and other practical techniques to make life easier. Part of your test here on Earth is to do just that without neglecting other important aspects of your personality.

You have created a false bifurcation of human activity into technological and spiritual, and have put one as the be all and end all, the other as valueless. A robot would be proud of you, if he could conceive of pride. Yet Mormonism insists on getting learning by study and also by faith. You have missed the point of this discussion, listening only to sound of your own voice as a new convert to scientism. You worship that golden calf only to your detriment, and you will one day come to realize the meaningless and sterility of that new religion. The Soviets finally did, much to their dismay.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just because religion pretends to make truth claims, doesn't mean it really is making them. The scientific method is honest about its limitations. Rarely do religous discussions go in that direction. What are the limits of Jainism in their understanding of the universe?

Furthermore, I will remind you of your own words, since it is you that said them. It seems contradictory to say you don't go to church for science, yet you expect there will be a day when they are compatible.

Notice that you didn't say that we "might" see compatibility. You pretty much guaranteed it. But of course, you just know.

". I accept that someday we will see that compatibility, but today probably isn't that day."

I don't see why it could not. I never said it had to. I have heard your reason for believing, and your philosophical assumptions that allows it to be logical. I disagree. I don't find your premises convincing. You might. I don't.

Did the Nephites exist in the americas? That seems like a question science could answer. Is religion supposed to answer things in that way? I would argue that it doesn't because religion doesn't accurately describe our world. You would say it doesn't because it isn't supposed to.

I don't think you get to claim authority on what religion can and can not do.

You are confusing two separate ways of knowing, Eldwynn. That they are compatible has nothing to do with each being the same as the other, but rather that they are separate techniques of knowing (epistemologies). The complementarity of these separate methods does not mean that you must use both. That is your free choice. You are here on Earth to develop both capacities, and it would behoove you not to neglect one or the other of those capacities.

You say that "religion doesn't accurately describe our world," forgetting that God told Joseph Smith the very same thing about normative religion. You might better speak to which religious belief system better describes the world, if any.

If, for example, there is a tight scientific correlation between the Book of Mormon claims about Jaredite & Nephite reality in the Americas, would that get your attention? Wouldn't that mean that both science and religion converge? Or do you automatically assume that it is all hogwash?

Of course Nephites really existed in the Western hemisphere, and the scientific method proves it. You are correct that that is a question which science can answer. Of course no one can force you to take a close, scientific look at the matter, any more than they can get you to pray about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Good grief, there is no God already. In science God is a hypothesis. No qualified and good practicing scientist invoke God for ANYTHING in their search for knowledge. Privately, in their own individual beliefs, yes, there are scientists who believe in God. Science as a discipline will NEVER add the extra hypothesis. Science deals with natural truth, not supernatural hypotheses. It's that simple. Science is Agod. Religion with its faith when they don't know what the hell to think or know adds God due to their ignorance of causes and effects. Science's advance takes away religion's god(s) with the more knowledge that is learned. Science has no reason to even ask about God in any experiment unless it is involved with religion's attempt to tread into scientific grounds, and then ONLY empirical evidence makes the difference, not accepting faith due to not knowing. There is no for or against God in science, because there simply is NO hypothesis of God in science. It would be like saying in science we have to invoke blixon. It is incoherent regardless of what attributes, properties, or beliefs one holds about a hypothetic entity labeled or called Blixon. It simply is not needed to make science work accurately and fully within the bounds of obvious human fallibility.

Kerry,

You still seem not to understand the difference between natural and supernatural, and you act as though God and religion must be supernatural. Joseph Smith's whole point about that was that God is a natural being, or our genus and species, and that we are part of an entirely natural universe or multiverse. He asserted that we are coeternal with God.

It is quite true that normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief rejects those notions, so that your time might better be spent railing against those false notions on an evangelical blog somewhere. Why are you repeating the same meaningless assertions here on MDDB? Unbeknownst to you, apparently, you have yet to say anything meaningful about or harmful to Mormonism. How sad that you don't understand that.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Ah....... I am VERY interested in this. You want to start a new thread and call my attention to it so I can discuss this with you? Sounds fun!

I am looking forward to it- but I am super busy for a few days and want to give the thread the time it deserves.

I will let you know when I am ready and hope you are as well! Looking forward to it!!

[mfbukowski]

Religion is not supposed to tell you about the world- it is supposed to tell you about YOU. Yes it is "subjective". That is the whole point.

It is a systematic exploration of what there is to learn about the subjective.

We are organisms or subjects in a world- science examines the world, religion examines what it is like to be a subject in that world.

In the dichotomy between acting and being acted upon, it is about what it means to be one who acts.

Edited August 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

I don't assume any such thing, I am saying it is entirely rational to go with what we know understanding we are fallible, but this doesn't stop us from learning truth through experimentation, analysis, and evidence.

What a very sterile world that would be. What experiment, analysis, and evidence could you possibly do to prove that my mother loved me?

[thesometimesaint]

Just because religion pretends to make truth claims, doesn't mean it really is making them. The scientific method is honest about its limitations. Rarely do religous discussions go in that direction. What are the limits of Jainism in their understanding of the universe?

Furthermore, I will remind you of your own words, since it is you that said them. It seems contradictory to say you don't go to church for science, yet you expect there will be a day when they are compatible.

Notice that you didn't say that we "might" see compatibility. You pretty much guaranteed it. But of course, you just know.

". I accept that someday we will see that compatibility, but today probably isn't that day."

That is a faith claim of your own. I don't subscribe to it.

I have no problem with the Scientific Method. I do have problems with those that go beyond what it does do however.

I can't speak to anyone's but my own discussions. I'll let others stand or fall of their own weight.

That is my own faith statement. Seeing as I'm a long ways from knowing all there is to know about my science and my religion. By way of analogy it is that my thimbles worth of knowledge is vanishingly small compared to the vast oceans of my ignorance. The natural default position is that someday I do have faith that I will know. But I don't expect that that day is today.

[Bic Pentameter]

I find this recent debate between Dawkins and Lennox very relevant to this duscussion.