Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[mfbukowski]

Interesting as usual Bill, the problem here as I see it is this "spirituality" that has evidence has absolutely none as it is claimed coming from God. Neuroscience has demonstrated that all the "spirituality" is in our own brains. Postulating a God for such naturalistic occurrences is entirely subjective with not one iota of evidence either for GOd, or for God being the reason for said "spirituality." All the experiences of spirituality can be explained using Occam's Razor as naturalistic occurrences in our brains. THIS in fact most certainly does have an enormous amount of evidences of expermentation and validation and justification. Science, thanks to its advances, now certainly does have the ability to literally test the efficacy of prayer (the actual tests that have been properly scientific have shown prayer fails miserably, no surprise), and that said "spiritual feelings" certainly can now be tested scientifically. Everything claimed as coming from God from somewhere now has obvious natural explanations with no ad hoc arguments having to be added on for apologetic purposes which fail in light of actual scientific verification today.

Did you read my post?

Of course it is in our brains. Everything we know is "in our brains". Where else would it be? How can I know about something with my brain if it is not "in my brain"?

That's like saying we only see things because we sense them with our eyes.

Agreed.

Another aspect of this is that there are major logical problems in a physicalist approach which claim the equivalence of statements about brainstates observed in third person language with first person statements about what is being experienced.

Edited August 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I'm tired of always being the one to stick up my hand around here. Pick on somebody else for a change.

Er, wait, no, I'll go ahead and answer. It's probably just easier this way.

He was transported, or he transported himself, from another planet, in his spirit body, entering the "other" body created for him by his (and our) Father in the garden of Eden. I say "other" because I can't say mortal, because his "other" body was an immortal body, unlike ours when we do that, which is mortal.

Don't ya know? We're all aliens from another planet.

LOL!

[Ahab]

Did you read my post?

Of course it is in our brains. Everything we know is "in our brains". Where else would it be? How can I know about something with my brain if it is not "in my brain"?

That's like saying we only see things because we sense them with our eyes.

Actually, your knowledge is in your mind, aka your spirit. Your brain is what your spirit uses to control and sense your body.. you know, the "other" body you have around your spirit.

If it were not so, when you died you wouldn't know anything, because your knowledge would be left behind in your brain. Can you imagine that? That would be very strange.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Did you read my post?

Of course it is in our brains. Everything we know is "in our brains". Where else would it be? How can I know about something with my brain if it is not "in my brain"?

That's like saying we only see things because we sense them with our eyes.

You don't understand. There is no reason to invoke God for anything now, it can and is being explained to be completely natural without any God involved at all in anything. To invoke God and give God the glory or credit is silly, it's US only. This is what science has discovered and continues to increase our knowledge in the complete naturalism of our lives. There IS NO GOD SPIRITUALITY, it is all human and natural. This is yet another way that science will never be compatible with Mormonism. Never.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Actually, your knowledge is in your mind, aka your spirit. Your brain is what your spirit uses to control and sense your body.. you know, the "other" body you have around your spirit.

If it were not so, when you died you wouldn't know anything, because your knowledge would be left behind in your brain. Can you imagine that? That would be very strange.

There is no justifiable actual factual real evidence for the concept of "spirit." It is always vague, and an extra hypothesis that is simply not needed. Everything can now be explained naturally with only us, our biological bodies and brains. Invoking spirit is adding extra hypothesis and violates Occam's Razor. Science has no evidence, and what's more no need to invoke a concept called spirit when everything is already occurring naturally. THis is yet another reason why science will never be compatible with Mormonism.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, your knowledge is in your mind, aka your spirit. Your brain is what your spirit uses to control and sense your body.. you know, the "other" body you have around your spirit.

If it were not so, when you died you wouldn't know anything, because your knowledge would be left behind in your brain. Can you imagine that? That would be very strange.

I am not even going to go there except to say that I think it's a tad more complex.

[volgadon]

This is yet another way that science will never be compatible with Mormonism. Never.

You mean yet anpther way in which certain interpretations of data will never be compatible with Mormonism. I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.

[mfbukowski]

You don't understand. There is no reason to invoke God for anything now, it can and is being explained to be completely natural without any God involved at all in anything. To invoke God and give God the glory or credit is silly, it's US only. This is what science has discovered and continues to increase our knowledge in the complete naturalism of our lives. There IS NO GOD SPIRITUALITY, it is all human and natural. This is yet another way that science will never be compatible with Mormonism. Never.

Of course it is human and natural. You still haven't read my post I guess. We really need to talk.

With all your understanding of symbolism I really don't know why you are not getting this. Obviously Masonry must teach nothing since it teaches nothing objectively observable, right?

Have you written that off too? Just curious.

[volgadon]

Invoking spirit is adding extra hypothesis and violates Occam's Razor.

Not if one goes for more than inaccurate bastardisation of the principle. Invoking Occam's Razor is ironic, considering its original setting and usual use for centuries.

[mfbukowski]

I would like a picture of Occam's Razor. After all it is not "in our brains" but the principle must be out there in the world existing objectively in a scientific sense for it to be real- so obviously one can take a picture of it.

Throw in a picture of mathematics while you are at it and maybe a nice profile shot of courage, and tell me how much love weighs.

Maybe if we shot a nuke at pain we could eradicate it forever.

Even I would agree with that if the nukes killed everyone on the planet. Indeed then pain itself would be eradicated.

That raises an interesting question. What would happen to science if there were no people left?

[zerinus]

There is no justifiable actual factual real evidence for the concept of "spirit." It is always vague, and an extra hypothesis that is simply not needed. Everything can now be explained naturally with only us, our biological bodies and brains. Invoking spirit is adding extra hypothesis and violates Occam's Razor. Science has no evidence, and what's more no need to invoke a concept called spirit when everything is already occurring naturally.

Would you like to be in the same situation that Pharaoh was, on whom Moses multiplied "signs" until--well, he ended up being dead!

THis is yet another reason why science will never be compatible with Mormonism.

Science is neither compatible nor incompatible with Mormonism; but truth always is.

[shalamabobbi]

Lorenzo Snow's couplet-

Yes, thanks but I don't see the implied necessity of an infinite regression. That only occurs if the physical body from God on each planet is the result of procreation on God's part. If evolution is the means of creating bodies then infinite regression is not a necessity. I know of the scripture in Moses. There is a similar scripture in the new testament but the inspired version changed it back to formed of God.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, thanks but I don't see the implied necessity of an infinite regression. That only occurs if the physical body from God on each planet is the result of procreation on God's part. If evolution is the means of creating bodies then infinite regression is not a necessity. I know of the scripture in Moses. There is a similar scripture in the new testament but the inspired version changed it back to formed of God.

Be that all as it may, it is I think clear that Snow's objective in coining that couplet in the first place was to put the viewpoint of the King Follette Discourse into a catchy phrase.

[mfbukowski]

To me, questioning if science is compatible with religion is like asking if the history of George Washington crossing the Delaware is compatible with Quantum Physics.

They really don't have much to do with each other. They are just not even talking about the same thing.

[Alvino]

To me, questioning if science is compatible with religion is like asking if the history of George Washington crossing the Delaware is compatible with Quantum Physics.

They really don't have much to do with each other. They are just not even talking about the same thing.

If a particular history of George Washington said that he once traveled faster than the speed of light, then it would be incompatible with quantum physics.

And that's the point. Some aspects of religion don't conflict with science because, you are correct, they don't have to do with science. Other aspects of religion, however, DO very much get into what science deals with and are made very implausible given what we know about science, aspects which you are clearly ignoring here for some reason. Address them and address the fact that many religious believers think things that clearly conflict with science and that they incorporate those conflicting beliefs into their religious practices. You guys who say science and religion talk about different things are forgetting the great conflicts that arise in practice today.

Now, there's another more subtle way in which religion and science conflict and that is the following. Religions are made harder to be followed because they have shown themselves to be unreliable too many times in the past. Sure, now the Pope can believe in evolution, but the fact that religions change from a stubborn denial of the evidence to acceptance makes religions appear less and less useful. You can't be losing so many fights, retreating, and expect people to consider you reliable in other matters.

[Alvino]

As simple as this:

If someone's religion said that mankind arose in its present form created by God and did not evolve from previous species, then that someone's religion conflicts with science.

If someone's religion said that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago and did not exist in any form previously, then that religion conflicts with science.

If someone's religion said that prayers can cure the sick (as medicines can cure illnesses) but in studies it is shown that this does not happen, then this religion conflicts with the findings of science.

If someone's religion said that we should expect a linear decline of a country's social wellness as people in that country believe less in Christ and God, then that religion is in conflict with what we actually see in the world today and, therefore, against science. (a particular among Mormons, I should point out)

Alas! Many people believe the things I've mentioned here, but you guys still say there is no conflict between religion and science? Another type of religious believer that doesn't accept your model, mf, are those who say TRUE science and TRUE religion agree with each other (as some have stated in this same thread). Why would they, science and religion, agree with each other if the matters with which they deal are totally different, brother? They don't really think their matters are so different, brother.

Look also at those who want to support the historicity of the BoM with Archaeology, Genetics (well, at least on this one they attempt more to defend themselves), History, etc. Aren't they doing so precisely because they think these methods will show certain aspects of your religion to be correct or very very plausible? How could that happen if science and religion don't overlap? (Let's not mention that these are people who are also quick to say science changes to protect themselves from the criticisms brought by the findings of science but are more than happy to say a vague piece of history and archaeology or literary criticism support their views).

[altersteve]

Once again, the only honest answer to this question from a completely neutral position is that there's no way to know if religion actually conflicts with science, because we don't know everything about science yet. All we can say as of now is that that religion only conflicts with the modern interpretations of some scientific findings and NOT science itself.

[Alvino]

Once again, the only honest answer to this question from a completely neutral position is that there's no way to know if religion actually conflicts with science, because we don't know everything about science yet. All we can say as of now is that that religion only conflicts with the modern interpretations of some scientific findings and NOT science itself.

Steve, science is NOT "What is the case" or "What is true". Science is an enterprise, a process, a method. When we say religion conflicts with science we mean that it conflicts with the findings of science. Evolution is the unifying theory of Biology and if you say it isn't correct, then what you said conflicts with science.

[thesometimesaint]

Alvino:

As simple as this:

If someone's religion said that mankind arose in its present form created by God and did not evolve from previous species, then that someone's religion conflicts with science.

If someone's religion said that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago and did not exist in any form previously, then that religion conflicts with science.

If someone's religion said that prayers can cure the sick (as medicines can cure illnesses) but in studies it is shown that this does not happen, then this religion conflicts with the findings of science.

If someone's religion said that we should expect a linear decline of a country's social wellness as people in that country believe less in Christ and God, then that religion is in conflict with what we actually see in the world today and, therefore, against science. (a particular among Mormons, I should point out)

Alas! Many people believe the things I've mentioned here, but you guys still say there is no conflict between religion and science? Another type of religious believer that doesn't accept your model, mf, are those who say TRUE science and TRUE religion agree with each other (as some have stated in this same thread). Why would they, science and religion, agree with each other if the matters with which they deal are totally different, brother? They don't really think their matters are so different, brother.

Look also at those who want to support the historicity of the BoM with Archaeology, Genetics (well, at least on this one they attempt more to defend themselves), History, etc. Aren't they doing so precisely because they think these methods will show certain aspects of your religion to be correct or very very plausible? How could that happen if science and religion don't overlap? (Let's not mention that these are people who are also quick to say science changes to protect themselves from the criticisms brought by the findings of science but are more than happy to say a vague piece of history and archaeology or literary criticism support their views).

The Church has no doctrine on evolution, but allows its members to believe whatever they want.

The Church has no doctrine on the age of the earth, but allows its members to believe whatever they want.

Actually there are numerous studies that show that in general religious people experience better outcomes in healthcare than those that don't.

Social decline is only tangentially related to religiosity. Not one of cause and effect.

Science by definition is always tentative, and LDS have as an article of faith that "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".

SEE http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

SEE http://www.jefflinds...DSFAQ/DNA.shtml

So if we present evidence for our beliefs we're wrong, and if we don't present evidence for our beliefs we're wrong. Impeccable logic.

Edited August 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Alvino]

The Church has no doctrine on evolution, but allows its members to believe whatever they want.

I know. The idea is that some of the views members adopt conflict with science. Believing in a garden of Eden before which there were no men or women goes against science, for example.

The Church has no doctrine on the age of the earth, but allows its members to believe whatever they want.

Same.

Actually there are numerous studies that show that in general religious people experience better outcomes in healthcare than those that don't.

Social decline is only tangentially related to religiosity. Not one of cause and effect.

If you look at the nations that are doing the best in lowering child mortality, better standards of living, etc, you'll see they are the least religious. No symptoms of social decline there and yet many Mormons think that we even the U.S. is experiencing a really bad time because people are 'turning away from God'. If that was a reason, then we should expect countries who are even less religious to be doing worst, but that's not at all what we see. I was talking about people who actually believe this stuff, even if you don't. In my experience, there are not few among the Church that believe it.

Science by definition is always tentative, and LDS have as an article of faith that "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".

That's quite misleading. That the Earth is not flat is not tentative, is it? That there are electrons and protons and atoms is not tentative only. That quantum mechanics works really well and relativity does so, too, are not really tentative beliefs. But even if they were, believing the Earth is square is not as plausible as it not being a square.

So if we present evidence for our beliefs we're wrong, and if we don't present evidence for our beliefs we're wrong. Impeccable logic.

No, if you defend yourself from some of the strongest results in science that indicate your religious beliefs are wrong (if you are one of those creationist folks, for example) by saying "science is just tentative" and, therefore, don't take it to be actual evidence against your beliefs, then you can't turn around to FARMS and say that there is actually a case for your faith based on Archaeology and Genetics. You either need to say the findings of science do have some weight against you if they indicate you are wrong, of that they just don't matter but that you can't form a scientific case for your side, either.

[altersteve]

Steve, science is NOT "What is the case" or "What is true". Science is an enterprise, a process, a method. When we say religion conflicts with science we mean that it conflicts with the findings of science. Evolution is the unifying theory of Biology and if you say it isn't correct, then what you said conflicts with science.

More accurately, it conflicts with modern interpretations of those findings, but that's pretty much what I said. I agree with everything you said here.

I believe in evolution, by the way.

[Alvino]

More accurately, it conflicts with modern interpretations of those findings, but that's pretty much what I said. I agree with everything you said here.

I believe in evolution, by the way.

OK, but, if I may still press the issue, some of the findings are not up for interpretation. That the Earth is not a square or that it is not flat is not really a "modern interpretation of the findings", is it? Please notice that there are things that while science may name them in a way today and differently tomorrow or put them as playing different roles today and different tomorrow, you still have the evidence or the data or the facts that are what is "up for interpretation". "Those findings" may not change at all. The finding that light gets diffracted in going through a prism is indeed up for interpretation in the sense that we ask "Why does this happen?" or "What causes this?" but not in the sense that we ask "Can light be diffracted?"

There is no good reason to think that what today are what we postulate as theories can later on be confirmed or falsified through advances in science, just as what was before postulated as a theory that the Earth was not square or flat to explain certain phenomena later on, with more advances in the tools we had (i.e. satellites), can be even known with as much certainty as watching a square and knowing it isn't a sphere.

[thesometimesaint]

Alvino:

The Church gives its members great latitude in what they personally may believe, as long as they stay within those latitudes. I don't see how it could be any other way give our beliefs. Formally we are a religious community and are bound by a common faith. So while all of us use science, the list of LDS scientists is long and impressive. Especially considering how old the Church is and how few members we have(14/15 million out of 7 billion isn't very many. Our goal is not furthering science, but to worship our God.

Infant mortality rates among the active Saints is small.

http://aje.oxfordjou...116/3/541.short

There is sense of social decline among a great number of people not just the Saints. However whatever popular opinion is. It is tangential.

Some people believed, some may still do, that the earth is flat. So what? The LDS have doctrine from the Book of Mormon that the earth is round. It is not absolutely round. It's slightly pear shaped. However for all intents and purposes it is round. I'm hardly responsible for what some people of my faith believe. Let alone those that are not.

You tell me. Was Newton correct, or Einstein, or Quantum Mechanics? Maybe all three are correct within the limits of those theories. Science is only as correct as the theories that it propounds. It is the times when the theories can't explain the new bit of information that make it always tentative.

The science just isn't there to disprove the Book of Mormon yet, It is also not there to prove it either yet. What there is is evidence for it. However some people wouldn't believe the evidence if archeologists dug up a highway sign that said "Zarahemla next five exists" today.

I didn't Link to FARMS, but I have nothing against them either. Please respond to what I actually type, and not some projection on your part.

Edited August 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Alvino]

CORRECTION:

I meant to say that, "There is no good reason to think that what today are what we postulate as theories can not later on be confirmed or falsified through advances in science, just as what was before postulated as a theory that the Earth was not square or flat to explain certain phenomena later on, with more advances in the tools we had (i.e. satellites), can be even known with as much certainty as watching a square and knowing it isn't a sphere.

[Ahab]

There is no justifiable actual factual real evidence for the concept of "spirit."

Wait until you see one and then see if you'll say the same thing. Many people have seen spirits, and they know for a fact they exist.

What better evidence can there be to actually seeing something for what it actually is?

It is always vague, and an extra hypothesis that is simply not needed. Everything can now be explained naturally with only us, our biological bodies and brains. Invoking spirit is adding extra hypothesis and violates Occam's Razor.

Blah blah blah. Once you know as much as I know about this then maybe I'll listen to you.

Science has no evidence, and what's more no need to invoke a concept called spirit when everything is already occurring naturally.

Spirits are natural, and observable through science. You just haven't seen one yet, apparently, so you just don't know they do exist.

THis is yet another reason why science will never be compatible with Mormonism.

Say something intelligent now. I'm getting tired of your hogwash.