Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[volgadon]

I understand all this. I am just making sure you are not implying and making out of context uses of Einstein to further your incorrect (from my perspective) view of mixing science and religion. The assumption implying that Einstein actually felt there is something to God and religion. He clearly did not. I am just clarifying this is all.

He did feel there was something to God, even to religion. He considered the problem "too vast for our limited minds," illustrating it by the allegory of a little child in a library, aware that someone must have written the books, but doesn't know who did. You are right about Spinoza's influence, but Einstein rejected the label of atheist. He considered himself a deist who didn't believe in free will. His concept of awe actually is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, and bears some similarities to Abraham Joshua Heschel's thought.

[volgadon]

The simple matter of fact that Einstein was Jewish enough for Hitler to want him killed.

That doesn't mean much, even grandchildren of Jewish converts to Christianity were considered by the Nazis to be Jewish.

[Alvino]

Science is God.

All Science will eventually grow and discover God. Look no further then the fact that Science is always changing. What once was a correct theory has now been overtaken by another discovery. That will only continue until that day when Science discovers god. It is my opinion that Science will draw closer and closer to God as the millennium is closer and closer. Which will not happen for a very long time.

My .000001 cent

Hello, tyler:

You maintain that science will eventually discover God but, if we are to see evidence for this position, wouldn't we expect the history of science to progressively be less conflictive with religion? Do you think this is what we see when we actually look at history? Think of evolution, the age of the Earth and the universe, healing through prayer, psychological phenomena, etc. In what aspect has science gotten closer to God so as to say that we are approaching Him?

[Alvino]

Kerry, what evidence do you have that "evolution...is not about design or purpose"; that there is "no directino, no intent, and no reason". Do you have any support for this position or is it just your opinion?

Neutrality has nothing to do with compatibility; you know better than to state some so illogical. It takes no stand, you may dislike that position, but the position is legitimite and does not speak to anything.

Storm Rider:

First of all, if this is your actual name, my congratulations on your luck. *tips hat*

You ask for evidence that the theory of evolution is unguided. Evolution is, like most scientific theories, an explanation of the states of affairs we see in nature and a predictor of what would happen if other state of affairs were to be in place. Evolution is in fact a process whose mechanisms require no intelligence or purpose to produce different species over time in a system. Now, whether there was an agent artificially singling out specific members of a population or preventing other members of a population from dying (thus allowing them to reproduce) is a probabilistic case. Science can't say that there was not an agent doing such things but 1) we have no evidence of such a designer and, 2) the changes in populations that we see in species corresponds all too well to the environments we know they had so there is simply no need to postulate a designer since environment (i.e. predators, climate, resource competitors, etc) explain it well. Also, since such an approach has been overwhelmingly successful, we have even less reason to postulate a designer and more reason to discard it.

[Alvino]

@Storm Rider:

I didn't answer the second part, my bad. Here it is.

You said:

Neutrality has nothing to do with compatibility; you know better than to state some so illogical. It takes no stand, you may dislike that position, but the position is legitimite and does not speak to anything.

If it doesn't have to do with whether it is compatible or not, it does have to do with what those who have control over the official positions of the Church intuit regarding evolution. Why not simply say there is no contradiction between evolution and the teachings of the Church? They don't even need to say evolution is correct, they can just say that, IF it were true, then it wouldn't conflict with true doctrine... so, why don't they? Let's not attempt to say that the issue is of no relevance since there is no single point of conflict between religion and science in the U.S. then this one.

[Alvino]

CORRECTION! I wanted to say the followin in the last sentence:

"Let's not attempt to say that the issue is of no relevance since there is no single point of conflict between religion and science in the U.S. that causes more polarization and is more of a breaking point between the two than this one."

Apologies.

[Alvino]

If God created everything, then indeed, anything discovered about the material world is God. Is that really hard to understand?

I don't think that is good logic. It simply doesn't make sense to say that God is everything He created anymore than saying a writer is his book. Did God create more of Himself? Etc.

[shalamabobbi]

Storm Rider:

First of all, if this is your actual name, my congratulations on your luck. *tips hat*

You ask for evidence that the theory of evolution is unguided. Evolution is, like most scientific theories, an explanation of the states of affairs we see in nature and a predictor of what would happen if other state of affairs were to be in place. Evolution is in fact a process whose mechanisms require no intelligence or purpose to produce different species over time in a system. Now, whether there was an agent artificially singling out specific members of a population or preventing other members of a population from dying (thus allowing them to reproduce) is a probabilistic case. Science can't say that there was not an agent doing such things but 1) we have no evidence of such a designer and, 2) the changes in populations that we see in species corresponds all too well to the environments we know they had so there is simply no need to postulate a designer since environment (i.e. predators, climate, resource competitors, etc) explain it well. Also, since such an approach has been overwhelmingly successful, we have even less reason to postulate a designer and more reason to discard it.

Not to mention that if it were necessary it would be directing the outcome farther away from the fittest or best solution.

Not all LDS see a conflict between evolution and the LDS religion. As an official stance the church takes no position upon the subject. David O McKay, the longest sitting president of the church believed it to be true.

Some members are quite agitated by the concept as are many non LDS. My best friend(LDS) is a plumber and he wasn't even aware that the moon turned the same face towards the earth. As with the lay members so with the leadership, since it is made of lay clergy. Selection is based upon personal worthiness in obedience to the laws of God such as the law of chastity etc, and not upon educational degrees. This may have more to do with the alleged conflict than anything else.

Thanks for posting and welcome to the board, however as you may soon discover this isn't a science forum.

Edited August 6, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[Alvino]

Couldn't it be argued that there is a difference between what is being observed, and the theories that explain what is being observed? There is a difference between evolution and the theory produced by observation that it is 100% random. Science is evolving and as more information becomes available, it is reasonable to conclude that we will get closer and closer to the truth and therefore, closer to a compatibility between science and religion. One example I often bring up is the concept of the speed of light. Scientists are very reluctant to consider that there is a speed greater than light. Of course, if this position is true then our religion is in serious trouble. But on the other hand, there are scientists that dispute this, even though it has been effectively proven based on our limited ability to study the phenomenon.

Evolution is not random, Freedom, anymore than DNA replication is. If it was random then there wouldn't be much hope at studying it since it couldn't be predicted, would there? And, it is only if you assume the truth of a particular religion that you can say that science that gets to the truth will agree with said religion. As I was telling another user here, what evidence do you have that science, which we can agree is getting better and better, is getting closer to supporting your religious beliefs? I don't see any.

[Alvino]

The aforementioned findings in cognitive psychology and neuroscience remind me of Calvin's sensus divinitatis (sense of divinity). Philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues in Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000) that sensus divinitatis is properly basic, much like the belief in the existence of other minds.

Ah, indeed! But there are plenty of problems with Plantinga's view, not the least of which is that he doesn't really answer the question of what a properly basic belief is. I also don't see what the great consequence in favor of Theism is if he turns out to be correct since that we have a properly basic belief doesn't imply the truth of such a belief (it's properly basic belief, not knowledge). Also, there is little agreement in what would be the actual belief. In what God or what qualities of God? Superior conscious power? Afterlife?

Plantinga has also made a rather famous evolutionary argument against naturalism. To simplify it, assuming our brain is merely the product of random mutations and natural selection, there is no reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are reliable when forming beliefs. The truthfulness of these beliefs become irrelevant compared to their evolutionary advantage. If naturalism is true, the naturalist cannot justify trust in his own cognitive faculties. If theism is true (mainly of the Abrahamic sort), then one is created in the image of God with the capacity for true knowledge.

On this point I think we have to keep in mind that we have what no one really disputes are an almost limitless amount of beliefs that are necessarily true, not just true: mathematical truths (putting logic somewhere in there, too). If we can do this, and we can form beliefs that are not only true but, even stronger, necessarily true (and an infinite amount of them), then it seems rather weak to me to say that if naturalism is true we have no reason to think our mental capacities give us true beliefs.

[Robert F. Smith]

Kerry said:

Did you fail to see the part where if anything of a religious nature can be ascribed to him that it is due to science? Surely that must give you pause if you actually think your quote establishes Einstein felt both were 50% important. This is not even the situation. Einstein was an atheist not a religious man. Awe, wonder, adorement, etc., came because of science for Einstein. He properly respected it, not religion. He claimed Spinoza's god was the one he believed in, Spinoza was an atheist, and at best a deist.

I understand all this. I am just making sure you are not implying and making out of context uses of Einstein to further your incorrect (from my perspective) view of mixing science and religion. The assumption implying that Einstein actually felt there is something to God and religion. He clearly did not. I am just clarifying this is all.

"Nothing is so bad that the self-escalating loop of our own judgments cannot make it worse. Nothing is so good that the self-grasping loop of our own judgments cannot ruin its goodness." Adam S. Miller, Rube Goldberg Machines: Essays in Mormon Theology (Kofford, 2012), 16 #92.

Jastrow, Robert K., God and the Astronomers, 2nd ed. (N.Y.: Norton, 1992).

[Robert F. Smith]

Alvino said:

"Let's not attempt to say that the issue is of no relevance since there is no single point of conflict between religion and science in the U.S.that causes more polarization and is more of a breaking point between the two than this one."

Evolution is not random, Freedom, anymore than DNA replication is. If it was random then there wouldn't be much hope at studying it since it couldn't be predicted, would there? And, it is only if you assume the truth of a particular religion that you can say that science that gets to the truth will agree with said religion. As I was telling another user here, what evidence do you have that science, which we can agree is getting better and better, is getting closer to supporting your religious beliefs? I don't see any.

On the one hand, one might well ask whether you believe that religion and science have overlapping methods? On the other, don't you think that the two only overlap when addressing ultimate reality? In other words, since the two rarely deal with the same subject-matter, why do you believe that they are in actual conflict?

The picture which Fritjof Capra (a physicist) developed to describe the very different methods used by religion and science is one in which Western science has spent centuries arduously and very cleverly climbing the mountain of knowledge and ultimate reality, only to find the Easterners already sitting in meditation at the top of the mountain. Capra, The Tao of Physics (1975).

A more immediate application of scientific method to religion might include archeological and linguistic analysis of the founding documents of any given religion. In the case of Mormonism, this could mean careful linguistic and archeological analysis of the Book of Mormon. Much of that has already been done by FARMS, with very positive results. Along these lines, one might want to have a look at a very ambitious scientific analysis by John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, forthcoming 2013), the content of which was summarized a few days ago by Sorenson at the the annual FAIR Conference: See the transcript online at http://www.fairlds.o...g-mormons-codex .

Edited August 6, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Alvino:

Don't conflate the tool with the tool user.

[ERayR]

Evolution is not random, Freedom, anymore than DNA replication is. If it was random then there wouldn't be much hope at studying it since it couldn't be predicted, would there? And, it is only if you assume the truth of a particular religion that you can say that science that gets to the truth will agree with said religion. As I was telling another user here, what evidence do you have that science, which we can agree is getting better and better, is getting closer to supporting your religious beliefs? I don't see any.

As I reach back to the dim recesses of my memory evolution was indeed defined as the changes brought about by random mutations.

I don't see science as getting any closer agreeing with religion either unless it is the religion of science itself.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Not random, but with slight variations that trend towards reproducing those traits or their extinction.

We all see through that glass darkly.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

You're wrong there, Kerry. Many of my ideas about God are based on what is obvious in reality... things that are real and therefore knowable through all 5 natural senses, and even the 6th sense.

Kerry:

6th sense? In reality?! Do, pray tell, present the objective evidence accepted by the world that such exists will you? I suspect the world will pretty much agree with the 5 senses, but what objective truths and evidences do you have for a postulated 6th sense is what I am asking.

For the 6th sense to kick in you need to be able to sense things through one of your 5 senses, so if you will acknowledge what I said about how God has been known and can be known through the 5 senses, we can get a little more into the 6th sense.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

Not random, but with slight variations that trend towards reproducing those traits or their extinction.

We all see through that glass darkly.

tss I distinctly remember being taught it was changes originating with random mutations,

[Ahab]

Kerry:

6th sense? In reality?! Do, pray tell, present the objective evidence accepted by the world that such exists will you? I suspect the world will pretty much agree with the 5 senses, but what objective truths and evidences do you have for a postulated 6th sense is what I am asking.

To get into a discussion about the 6^th sense it would probably be best if we began by describing what the 6^th sense is, otherwise one of us might not know what it is we are talking about. I describe it as the ability to know something when it isn’t possible to know using only the intellect, or brain cells.

For example, suppose a person who is God was standing in front of you, and you could plainly see him with your eyes. I know that’s hard for you to imagine through your skepticism, but suppose he really was, for a moment. The 6^th sense is what would tell you the person you saw was God, if he was, when you wouldn’t be able to know that without the 6^th sense. After all, it could be at least remotely possible that the person you saw was an alien from some other planet, more advanced than you were, possibly, but still not God. Couldn’t you think so? That would be at least remotely possible, in your mind, wouldn’t it? But what if it really was God, and not just some random alien from some other planet who looked kinda like you do? What if? How would you know that? If you did, and it was, it would be through the 6^th sense.

And I’m talking about really knowing while seeing or hearing or possibly touching or smelling, and with that really being one of the persons who is God rather than you just guessing or assuming or forming some kind of educated hypothesis using only your brain or by accepting what someone else in the crowd was telling you. You would know for yourself, and in that case be right, and you would know it.

Or, for some other example without using something “religious”, suppose you were sure you saw some water while you were wandering in a desert. The 6^th sense could let you know it was water, if it was, rather than just some hallucination you were imagining because you were thirsty and you thought it was water, when it wasn’t. And I’m talking about really knowing it was water and before you got to the place where you were sure you saw it.

Or, for another example, suppose some people wanted you to drive them to some place while saying someone at the destination point would give you some money. The 6^th sense could let you know when it was a real deal, or a con, whatever it was. I mean, it could be at least remotely possible that the people were being honest with you while offering you that kind of a deal, isn’t it? What if someone really would give you $10,000 if you drove them all to a certain place 1000 miles away, in addition to reimbursing you for all your expenses? How else could you know that, and I mean really know that, before you got the money? Or before you realized you were conned? It’s even possible that you could think you were conned because nobody at the destination point had the money on them in cash while saying they would send it to you later, and until you got it you didn’t believe it.

Things like that are what the 6^th sense can tell you, and there are at least some times when you can’t know something without having that 6^th sense. After all, it is at least remotely possible that something could be the way it appears, isn’t it? Or then again, it could be just some part of a big elaborate con by some type of master deceiver.

NOTE: In my examples the 6^th sense shows when something is true, or real. There is nothing that can prove or show when something is false or not real, in itself, but if and when you know what is true or real you can know the opposite of that is false.

[Alvino]

As I reach back to the dim recesses of my memory evolution was indeed defined as the changes brought about by random mutations.

I don't see science as getting any closer agreeing with religion either unless it is the religion of science itself.

Random mutation + natural selection. Random mutation is indeed random. But combined with natural selection evolution, the whole process, is not random. Again, if it was completely random we wouldn't be able to study it in the first place or make predictions out of it with any usefulness (though randomness itself is an interesting thing).

Think of it this way. You flip the perfect coin several hundred times and record each one but you edit out of the video the tries that resulted in heads. Coin tossing is random but natural selection (and the whole process because of it) isn't.

[Alvino]

On the one hand, one might well ask whether you believe that religion and science have overlapping methods?

They overlap in, for example, the effective curative abilities of prayers for the ill which doesn't seem very hard to test. But I wouldn't say their methods 'overlap' (I'm not clear what you mean) more than one is insufficient and not very good, and the other one is the best we've developed so far.

On the other, don't you think that the two only overlap when addressing ultimate reality?

Science doesn't address ultimate reality, Robert, Philosophy does (Metaphysics, specifically). Religion does so in a very superficial way so it at least talks about it.

In other words, since the two rarely deal with the same subject-matter, why do you believe that they are in actual conflict?

They often deal with the same subject matter as with prayer, but not in "ultimate reality". Think about the claims Mormons make, for example, that the findings of science can make plausible or implausible. The age of the Earth, the origin of life, the origin of our specie, historical claims, etc.

The picture which Fritjof Capra (a physicist) developed to describe the very different methods used by religion and science is one in which Western science has spent centuries arduously and very cleverly climbing the mountain of knowledge and ultimate reality, only to find the Easterners already sitting in meditation at the top of the mountain. Capra, The Tao of Physics (1975).

Again, I don't think science has much, if anything, to say about "ultimate reality" as I understand the term to be used. With regards to the Easterners, justification is what we're looking for and tools to manipulate nature, not just correct general hypotheses.

A more immediate application of scientific method to religion might include archeological and linguistic analysis of the founding documents of any given religion. In the case of Mormonism, this could mean careful linguistic and archeological analysis of the Book of Mormon. Much of that has already been done by FARMS, with very positive results. Along these lines, one might want to have a look at a very ambitious scientific analysis by John L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, forthcoming 2013), the content of which was summarized a few days ago by Sorenson at the the annual FAIR Conference: See the transcript online at http://www.fairlds.o...g-mormons-codex .

I'm not familiar with the work of FARMS or with linguistic analysis or Archaeology to give you any opinion worth your time. But what I can tell you is that the credibility of a Mormon institution saying they have good evidence for the historicity of the BoM is rather weak, to say the least.

[Alvino]

I don't see science as getting any closer agreeing with religion either unless it is the religion of science itself.

(I forgot to address this, sorry)

Well, please give me some examples of true science and true religion coming together so as to form a pattern... let's forget the fact that this approach of yours seems suspiciously circular: "How do I know it is true science? It agrees with true religion. How do I know it is true religion? It agrees with true science."

[mfbukowski]

... Capra, The Tao of Physics (1975).

Indeed that was one of the books I read which helped me understand Mormonism when I found it in 1980. At that time it was cutting edge stuff!

[Ahab]

(I forgot to address this, sorry)

Well, please give me some examples of true science and true religion coming together so as to form a pattern... let's forget the fact that this approach of yours seems suspiciously circular: "How do I know it is true science? It agrees with true religion. How do I know it is true religion? It agrees with true science."

Science deals with what can be sensed through the 5 natural senses, right? Well, so can some things in religion, and when that happens there is that connection.

Suppose for a moment that Jesus Christ is a real person, and you saw him.

That would be science, since you saw him with one of the 5 natural senses, and it would also coincide with religion if you believed him.

[Bic Pentameter]

Faith does not automatically turn uncertainties into certainties. What it does is take us beyond the detached, speculative outlook which prevents the most significant sorts of experience; it enables us to live and act amid the uncertainties of life without pretensions of intellectual or moral infallibility. (Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science andReligion, 137.)

Kevin, just wanted to let you know that I found your last post very thought provoking and uplifting on many levels. Thanks.

[Alvino]

Science deals with what can be sensed through the 5 natural senses, right? Well, so can some things in religion, and when that happens there is that connection.

It isn't so simple. Is the roundness of an electron determined through the "5 senses" (let's just say "sense experience" because the number of the senses is utterly questionable)? Data received from machines that measure these things aren't really making us see the roundness of the electron, does it? Most of particle physics is like this. But, what about forces? Do we see them or touch them? Nope. Vectors? Nope. That a car is moving is not science (any child can tell us that) but to what velocity, where it will be if it continues to move as it's doing, how the combustion engine works, etc, are things that are not known through the senses directly, although we can test these predictions and ideas in specific cases.

Suppose for a moment that Jesus Christ is a real person, and you saw him.

That would be science, since you saw him with one of the 5 natural senses, and it would also coincide with religion if you believed him.

Observations are part of science, but they aren't what science is all about. Science is a HUGE enterprise with methods to get data, to test data, to compare data, to explain data, to predict data. Philosophy is another important part of rational inquiry and what you are talking about is more of a conflict with rational inquiry than with science. Science isn't a data-gathering activity, Ahab. If you saw Jesus then you have a bunch of questions to ask:

How do you know that person is Jesus Christ? What constitutes good evidence that this person is the Messiah? Etc. These questions are philosophical questions, but let's see scientific questions:

Does this person age? If this person gives you information about the world to show he is Jesus, is his physical evidence correct?

As you see, there are MANY different questions you can ask, some of them scientific, some of them philosophical and epistemological. As usual, matters are not so simple, friend.