Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[Robert F. Smith]

Exactly right.

Nonsense.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ahab:

So, okay, let's roll with that now. Suppose 2 or 3 (or maybe even more) people saw the same thing, like in this case a spirit (or ghost if you like that term better). Would their testimony then count for something, to you?

Just in case you don't know it, there's lots of evidence in this world to show that people have seen spirits (or ghosts) before, even if you don''t believe what they've said they've seen. Where do you get off on the idea that nobody has ever seen spirits (or ghosts) before, dude?

Kerry:

You obviously, and I mean ***obviously*** don't have a clue about how science works do you? Fess up thar cowboy. It is absolutely IRRELEVANT if you have someone say they believe something occurred. Science is about testing and then submitting the experiment and evidence to MORE scientists who then experiment and test and submit it to YET MORE, until it can be established as *justified* in line with what we currently know about the world and the universe. It HAS to be public, BROADLY so in order for it to be valid across the boards. It is not about bearing a spiritual testimony (HOW, pray tell, is THAT even remotely testable?) about something you believe in.

I have NEVER said that no one has seen ghosts and spirits, I most certainly said, and will most certainly say it again however, that simply seeing something you INTERPRET as spirits is NOT scientifically valid or established as justifiable truth with what we already KNOW about the world and the universe, taking into account, of course, human fallibility. Someone seeing spirits may very well occur, that someone's interpretation that it is from GOD, is just that, an interpretation. There are other explanations than that person's however, and these other explanations HAVE to be taken into account (based on what we know to be thus far), and the law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor applied to the interpretations to see which one is more plausible. Plausibility, based on neuroscience certainly has a greater demonstration than testimony based on a no evidence God (evidence in our actual physical existence, something measurable, that we can see, or understand through detection with our fine tuned instruments, etc.) Testimony does not establish every claim as scientific, otherwise, we'd still be believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Xenophogasions from Uranus as reality. Because someone claims she has seen Slithy Toves, and has a couple of his brothers and a cousin who also claim this does NOT prove their actual, real, physical existence. Surely you can comprehend that?

The blind leads the blind and both fall in the ditch. That is the only principle evident here.

You don't actually want to discuss science, Kerry, because that might be too upsetting. Who knows where that might lead? Too risky. That is why you avoid it like the plague.

[cinepro]

What you are saying is utter nonsense for several reasons.

What volgadon and others say about secret projects is quite true, and all the pretending in the world that it was not publicly available knowledge did not prevent the Manhattan Project (where science and technology were wedded) from devastating two Japanese cities in 1945 with secret fission weapons. A good deal of industrial espionage as well as trade secrecy worldwide is at issue even as I write, and this will continue to be so as nations seek to obtain advantage over other nations.

If you mean by "publicly" -- "openly, worldwide," then you should say so, rather than giving the false impression that yokels have anything to say about science. The hoi polloi use technology, if they can afford it, and have no idea what scientific principle underlies it.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

The USA kept the science of the Manhattan Project secret, and for good reason, but that science was available to all the other countries willing to invest the resources and brainpower into it. Obviously there are laws that facilitate the commercial and technological applications of "science", but that doesn't stop anyone from discovering anything on their own. It only stops them from applying it in certain ways.

"Yokels", and anyone else, can learn just as much science as anyone else, and are free to make theories, test them, and have other scientists verify or falsify their claims. Certainly, much research involves the use of scarce resources which means money and time are involved (not every yokel can use a particle accelerator just by asking, and some science might involve the use of scarce resources, such as plutonium, that would force the yokels to obtain it through unethical means), but that doesn't mean science isn't "public". It just means it has to operate in real-world economies.

[cinepro]

So you're saying one person alone can't confirm that something is real even if it is right there in front of his (or her) face?

Hmm, maybe that's part of what the Lord meant when he said something about needing 2 or 3 witnesses to establish the truth of someone's testimony.

So, okay, let's roll with that now. Suppose 2 or 3 (or maybe even more) people saw the same thing, like in this case a spirit (or ghost if you like that term better). Would their testimony then count for something, to you?

Just in case you don't know it, there's lots of evidence in this world to show that people have seen spirits (or ghosts) before, even if you don''t believe what they've said they've seen. Where do you get off on the idea that nobody has ever seen spirits (or ghosts) before, dude?

Sadly, eyewitness testimony is one of the worst sorts of evidences for anything. Once you venture into the realm of unusual things, it becomes downright abysmal.

And 2, or 3, or 50 pieces of bad evidence don't add up to good evidence.

I suspect most people don't believe eyewitness reports of such things because they understand the logical conundrum they place themselves in by having to figure out whether or not they're going to believe every unusual thing that anyone claims they've seen, or they're going to be "selective". Until there is some better standard of selectivity that isn't arbitrary, it would seem that eyewitness testimony of unusual things just isn't a good basis for belief in such things, and the human race is better off if we wait for better evidence to come forward before believing such things.

From the article:

In recent years, neuroscientists have documented how these mistakes happen. It turns out that the act of summoning the past to the surface actually changes the memory itself. Although we’ve long imagined our memories as a stable form of information, a data file writ into the circuits of the brain, that persistence is an illusion. In reality, our recollections are always being altered, the details of the past warped by our present feelings and knowledge. The more you remember an event, the less reliable that memory becomes.

And this returns us to the problem of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitnesses are repeatedly asked to recall what they saw, but their answers are inevitably influenced by the questions being asked. The result is more confidence in increasingly less accurate testimony.

Edited August 15, 2012 by cinepro

[harfad]

What you are saying is utter nonsense for several reasons.

What volgadon and others say about secret projects is quite true, and all the pretending in the world that it was not publicly available knowledge did not prevent the Manhattan Project (where science and technology were wedded) from devastating two Japanese cities in 1945 with secret fission weapons. A good deal of industrial espionage as well as trade secrecy worldwide is at issue even as I write, and this will continue to be so as nations seek to obtain advantage over other nations.

If you mean by "publicly" -- "openly, worldwide," then you should say so, rather than giving the false impression that yokels have anything to say about science. The hoi polloi use technology, if they can afford it, and have no idea what scientific principle underlies it.

You are confusing technology with science. Technology is the application of science. The science was discovered earlier and by others, and was public knowledge. The application of that science to the creation of a practical device was a (temporary) secret. But other countries also knew that it could be done, and were working on it, and eventually did it any way; it just took them a little longer to get there.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

I know.

The USA kept the science of the Manhattan Project secret, and for good reason, but that science was available to all the other countries willing to invest the resources and brainpower into it. Obviously there are laws that facilitate the commercial and technological applications of "science", but that doesn't stop anyone from discovering anything on their own. It only stops them from applying it in certain ways.

"Yokels", and anyone else, can learn just as much science as anyone else, and are free to make theories, test them, and have other scientists verify or falsify their claims. Certainly, much research involves the use of scarce resources which means money and time are involved (not every yokel can use a particle accelerator just by asking, and some science might involve the use of scarce resources, such as plutonium, that would force the yokels to obtain it through unethical means), but that doesn't mean science isn't "public". It just means it has to operate in real-world economies.

There is a dearth of mathematical and scientific knowledge on planet Earth, and this limits the doing of real science. I won't deal here with other inhabited planets. There is also a lack of resources in some countries (like the USA), which means that basic research is not being pursued. In countries willing to spend more money, this may mean more advances over time.

Yokels don't participate in science because they haven't the self-discipline or IQ or opportunity to study and develop adequate knowledge, even though they enjoy commenting on their pseudo-scientific knowledge. They are impervious to rational critique because they don't recognize or understand it. They are afraid to deal directly with scientific data and normative scientific interpretations largely because of fear of the unknown. The results might be fatal to their favorite apriori belief system. Can't have that. Right?

[Robert F. Smith]

You are confusing technology with science. Technology is the application of science. The science was discovered earlier and by others, and was public knowledge. The application of that science to the creation of a practical device was a (temporary) secret. But other countries also knew that it could be done, and were working on it, and eventually did it any way; it just took them a little longer to get there.

At least you got the distinction between science and technology right. Something Kerry still has yet to recognize. However, your admission that the secret was temporary is fatal to your claim, since any disjuncture falsifies your and Kerry's claim. Yes, the general scientific idea was abroad in several countries, but the need for a plethora of theoretical physicists in the Manhattan Project belies your claim that it was only a matter of practical application. Indeed, the Soviets had to steal our atomic secrets, even thought they had plenty of top scientists (including those they had captured in Germany).

[thesometimesaint]

What if the Holy Ghost is a natural, material entity? Would that disturb you?

A Zen master might ask whether the law of gravity exists if there are no humans to see it in action. Do the laws of physics exist if no humans or other sentient beings are aware of them? You know the answer, and it has nothing to do with public knowledge. Well, maybe it would make a good koan.

Not particularly, but in LDS theology the Holy Ghost has no physical body. He is a personage of Spirit.

I can measure gravity by its effects on physical objects, and/or electromagnetic energy waves. So it is a bit of a difficulty for science to measure something for which they have no instruments with the ability to measure. Maybe someday but that day probably isn't today.

Edited August 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

The USA kept the science of the Manhattan Project secret, and for good reason, but that science was available to all the other countries willing to invest the resources and brainpower into it. Obviously there are laws that facilitate the commercial and technological applications of "science", but that doesn't stop anyone from discovering anything on their own. It only stops them from applying it in certain ways.

"Yokels", and anyone else, can learn just as much science as anyone else, and are free to make theories, test them, and have other scientists verify or falsify their claims. Certainly, much research involves the use of scarce resources which means money and time are involved (not every yokel can use a particle accelerator just by asking, and some science might involve the use of scarce resources, such as plutonium, that would force the yokels to obtain it through unethical means), but that doesn't mean science isn't "public". It just means it has to operate in real-world economies.

Likewise the spiritual and its manifestations are available to anybody who wants to invest the time, resources and themselves into looking.

[ERayR]

Not particularly, but in LDS theology the Holy Ghost has no physical body. He is a personage of Spirit.

I can measure gravity by its effects on physical objects, and/or electromagnetic energy waves. So it is a bit of a difficulty for science to measure something for which they have no instruments with the ability to measure. Maybe someday but that day probably isn't today.

Likewise the spiritual is measurable by the effects it has on a physical person. It however is not measurable with a meter but its effect most certainly can be graphed.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

So, okay, let's roll with that now. Suppose 2 or 3 (or maybe even more) people saw the same thing, like in this case a spirit (or ghost if you like that term better). Would their testimony then count for something, to you?

Just in case you don't know it, there's lots of evidence in this world to show that people have seen spirits (or ghosts) before, even if you don''t believe what they've said they've seen. Where do you get off on the idea that nobody has ever seen spirits (or ghosts) before, dude?

Kerry:

... It is absolutely IRRELEVANT if you have someone say they believe something occurred. Science is about testing and then submitting the experiment and evidence to MORE scientists who then experiment and test and submit it to YET MORE, until it can be established as *justified* in line with what we currently know about the world and the universe.

In what is called "scientific" discovery and analysis, there are times when someone can't submit the evidence or experiment, itself. At such times they can give only a REPORT of what they claim to have experienced so someone else can use that in their OWN experiments if they can find the same type of evidence.

For example, for someone to "scientifically" determine what water is, you don't have to bring them some water so they can know what it is. You can just describe it as well as you can while letting someone else go get their own water or at least try to based on your description of it.

It HAS to be public, BROADLY so in order for it to be valid across the boards.

In other words, it has to be observable through scientific methods of discovery and analysis. That's it. That is the only criteria.

It is not about bearing a spiritual testimony (HOW, pray tell, is THAT even remotely testable?) about something you believe in.

It's testable in the sense that if someone really experienced what they claim to have experienced then that automatically makes it possible for someone else to experience the same type of thing under similar conditions. Otherwise, their claim is not justified.

I have NEVER said that no one has seen ghosts and spirits, I most certainly said, and will most certainly say it again however, that simply seeing something you INTERPRET as spirits is NOT scientifically valid or established as justifiable truth with what we already KNOW about the world and the universe, taking into account, of course, human fallibility.

Yes it is. If someone has actually seen what they call ghosts and/or spirits, then they have used what are called methods of scientific discovery and analysis to determine that those were ghosts and/or spirits. Their scientific results may be flawed and in need of some updates later, but so called scientists are often wrong about things in some way so that's nothing new to what is called "science".

Someone seeing spirits may very well occur, that someone's interpretation that it is from GOD, is just that, an interpretation.

Right, or what can also be called scientific analysis which is often just some personal interpretation of what they saw.

There are other explanations than that person's however, and these other explanations HAVE to be taken into account (based on what we know to be thus far), and the law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor applied to the interpretations to see which one is more plausible.

That's reasonable but not necessary for what is called science in the world we live in. I agree that we should seek out the best answers from the best sources, however.

Plausibility, based on neuroscience certainly has a greater demonstration than testimony based on a no evidence God (evidence in our actual physical existence, something measurable, that we can see, or understand through detection with our fine tuned instruments, etc.)

There is evidence that God exists, so I reject your claim of a "no evidence God".

I'm wondering now about what you would do if you ever experienced evidence of that God, yourself. Would you not believe what you experienced until you had submitted to a brain scan so other people could examine your neurons and somehow confirm what you experienced? What if those "scientists" didn't know what God was and they just explained what your neurons were showing them as something other than God? Or what if they said those neurons in your brain was what God actually was?

I'll tell you one thing, repeatedly. When I say I have experienced God I want you to understand that I know you can also experience God for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. He's out there for you to experience, too, and it is possible for you to actually see him, and/or hear him, and/or feel him, and/or... well, I haven't smelled him or tasted him yet so I can't tell you much about all of that.

Testimony does not establish every claim as scientific, otherwise, we'd still be believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Xenophogasions from Uranus as reality. Because someone claims she has seen Slithy Toves, and has a couple of his brothers and a cousin who also claim this does NOT prove their actual, real, physical existence. Surely you can comprehend that?

Yes, I can comprehend that. Can you comprehend what I have told you about what I have experienced?

I'll tell you something else now, which any other good scientist should also be able to tell you. You should be very careful before making a claim that something does not exist. After all, how could you know it didn't exist? It could be that you just never saw it or heard it before, but that wouldn't mean it wasn't possible to see it or hear it, or feel it. A good scientist should be open to possibilities. Imagine "what if?"

Edited August 15, 2012 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Likewise the spiritual is measurable by the effects it has on a physical person. It however is not measurable with a meter but its effect most certainly can be graphed.

I've seen the effect spirits have on humans, at least the House of Seagram type of spirits.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Self fulfilling prophecy

[ERayR]

ERayR:

I've seen the effect spirits have on humans, at least the House of Seagram type of spirits.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Self fulfilling prophecy

Is that your idea of a cogent response. Ridicule is always a last resort. It would have been funny had you then gone on to address the issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

Likewise the spiritual and its manifestations are available to anybody who wants to invest the time, resources and themselves into looking.

True, but that is a personal quest and non-transferrable. Science cannot comment on it since it is not subject to independent laboratory verification or falsification -- essential to science.

Likewise, although Alma 32 reminds us of the experimental method, and can certainly be convincing to the individual who experiments. The results are still non-transferrable. We need other scientific techniques when it comes to finding scientific reasons to believe in God or in some artifact provided to us by God. We need standard techniques which meet laboratory standards and which are transferrable.

[Robert F. Smith]

Likewise the spiritual is measurable by the effects it has on a physical person. It however is not measurable with a meter but its effect most certainly can be graphed.

What would a Scientologist say? Put an E-meter on it?

[wenglund]

Kerry,

When you speak of "science" here, are you including the soft sciences (like psychology, socialogy, anthropology, economics, political science, etc.)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ahab:

A good scientist should be open to possibilities. Imagine "what if?"

Kerry:

No, it is not in possibilities that science works with, rather probabilities. That makes ALL the difference. If dealing with possibilities then ANYTHING goes, including Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, tooth fairies, and slithy toves. Science is NOT about possibilities, it is all about probabilities. It is religion that wishes to have things in the realm of possible, not science. Science accepts what is TESTABLE and PROBABLE, based on knowledge that we already know about the world and the universe. THAT is the ONLY barometer of truth that science deals with. Anything that is testable is in the realm of science, all else is not. Robert thinks he knows so much more about science than anyone else, yet he is obviously out to lunch as well. I read the scientists, I know what they say science is. Robert is simply mad that they don't agree with his wishes about what it is all about, hence his diatribes against it. He's upset (he'll deny this, of course) because religion doesn't have near the credibility that science does. And quite frankly, I can't blame him, an entire lifetime spent in the area of religion that has very little credibility the world over, except how to kill and cause confusion and mayhem, yeah, that's tick me off right royal also.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Robert Smith:

There is a dearth of mathematical and scientific knowledge on planet Earth, and this limits the doing of real science.

Kerry:

How do you know? Have you taken a survey? This kind of pretense is just silly. Just because religious scholars and researchers don't know much about math does not give them the credibility to then pretend their ignorance is the bar of knowledge to lay at the feet of the REALLY FANTASTIC mathematicians who would simply ignore you from now on for spouting this kind of silliness Robert. Your ignorance of math is not proof of its dearth worldwide. Got a suggestion for you, read Morris Kline, just one of many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of mathematicians who have the reality check for your mere assertion without any evidence here. Good thing he never published with Prometheus, your bias would prevent you from actually reading him and learning something. The arrogance here is vastly more astonishing than you can possibly imagine. Do you really think it was prayer alone that got the Mars rover to Mars recently? Will the knowledge we learn about Mars be so vastly inferior to revelation from God on the topic, if he chooses to bother spending time with it for our benefits and enjoyments? Has any revelations from God about knowledge of much of anything physical in our universe ever been close to comparison to the VAST knowledge we possess at this time THANKS to the mathematical models, imperfect and incomplete though they are? You think saints prayers are what gave us capability to invent jet liners and automobiles, radio, television, and computers?! And don't worry about slobbering on about my supposed confusion of science and technology. The two are married just as surely as God is with righteousness. Quit pretending they aren't.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

At least you got the distinction between science and technology right. Something Kerry still has yet to recognize. However, your admission that the secret was temporary is fatal to your claim, since any disjuncture falsifies your and Kerry's claim. Yes, the general scientific idea was abroad in several countries, but the need for a plethora of theoretical physicists in the Manhattan Project belies your claim that it was only a matter of practical application. Indeed, the Soviets had to steal our atomic secrets, even thought they had plenty of top scientists (including those they had captured in Germany).

Robert, technology is POSSIBLE because of scientific reasoning, not religious revelation, prayer, and faith in what is NOT seen. I KNOW the difference. And I certainly understand why you want people to think I don't. But it won't work. You want to talk about what science IS and what it DOES? Lets talk in another thread, I'd LOVE to educate your religious mind into the reality of science. EVERYTHING *works* in our physical world, because of science, not religious prayer and faith. It is hands on KNOWLEDGE based on scientific reasoning that produces the technology. What has religion ever produced except WAR?! I think after 9/11, the rabbi was right who said "All religion ever has accomplished is flying planes into buildings." Ponder that. Because it was religious ideology that misused science to destroy so much. Science builds, expands, and helps us improve. Lets start a thread if you continue to think I don't know what science is all about.

[volgadon]

And quite frankly, I can't blame him, an entire lifetime spent in the area of religion that has very little credibility the world over, except how to kill and cause confusion and mayhem, yeah, that's tick me off right royal also.

AGAIN? Science kills, causes confusion, and mayhem as much as Religion does, and were it not for technology...

What has religion ever produced except WAR?!

Art, architecture, music, literature, medical and wlefare services, orphanages, hospitals, universities, etc., etc., etc...

I think after 9/11, the rabbi was right who said "All religion ever has accomplished is flying planes into buildings." Ponder that. Because it was religious ideology that misused science to destroy so much. Science builds, expands, and helps us improve. Lets start a thread if you continue to think I don't know what science is all about.

You'll find that terorists didn't levitate themselves into buildings. Ponder that.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Robert:

You don't actually want to discuss science, Kerry, because that might be too upsetting. Who knows where that might lead? Too risky. That is why you avoid it like the plague.

Kerry:

Start the topic. I'll talk about it with you.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Volgadon:

You'll find that terorists didn't levitate themselves into buildings. Ponder that.

Kerry:

No they didn't. They used their stupid religious bias and ideology of God is on our side, and God loves us and will bless us with many, many virgins in heaven for KILLING innocent people because they don't worship God correctly. Based on their religion, they murder, just as all religious fanatics have done for utterly millenia. Their religious ideology will cause them to go to the utter ends of the earth, and use anything they can to kill and hate because people think differently. THIS is the fruit of all religion. Oh and uh.....did I say, I agree with Jesus? If the fruit is bad, the religion is too?

But take Einstein and Bohr, two magnificent and intelligent scientists obviously disagreeing over pretty much everything in science...... or take Hawking and Susskind disagreeing over so much about physics and cosmology.... do they because of their scientific differences declare war and heretics and extermination in the name of science? No. They do the intelligent thing, they explore it together, disagree, test each others knowledge, don't damn each other to some mythical hell invented in order to brainwash and intimidate the intellectually gullible. They don't arm nations for war, hate and kill each others families, etc. Science NEVER has gone to war for disagreement. That is why it is vastly superior to religion and her bias and short sighted fundamentalist thinking. Science teaches, religion kills. You learn through science, you fear through religion. Science actually teaches good practical truths, religion teaches unreal myths about far away places that have no reality or truth to them. One is rational, the other is silly.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Robert F. Smith]

Kerry:

No, it is not in possibilities that science works with, rather probabilities. . . .. Science is NOT about possibilities, it is all about probabilities.

Correct, Kerry,

and even though you don't know the first thing about statistical analysis or the calculation of likelihood, you are right on target. So, suppose we deal with what is probable or plausible? Would that make you happy?

It is religion that wishes to have things in the realm of possible, not science.

False statement. So far as the various religions of the world are concerned, beliefs run from absolute certainty to absolute impossibility, with every gradation in between -- depending of course on the individual dogma. Some religions revel in the ineffable (unknowable) nature of God or Reality, others focus on mystical experience. Religion is not unitary or all of one description. Some religions even claim to be scientific, such as Scientology and the Comintern. One thing scientists don't do is to make irresponsible and false claims about observable phenomena, like religion.

Science accepts what is TESTABLE and PROBABLE, based on knowledge that we already know about the world and the universe. THAT is the ONLY barometer of truth that science deals with. Anything that is testable is in the realm of science, all else is not.

Correct. And this leaves out much of the entirely subjective religious realm which you focus on because of your deep seated contempt for it. If you were a scientist, you would not be likely to spend much time making false statements about religion in general, or in particular. However, it gives you pleasure to hate what you don't understand so that you can successfully separate yourself from it.

. . . . I read the scientists, I know what they say science is. . . . religion doesn't have near the credibility that science does. . . . the area of religion that has very little credibility the world over, except how to kill and cause confusion and mayhem, yeah, that's tick me off right royal also.

So you need to find someone to blame for all the death and mayhem which scientists have made possible. You say you read scientists. I see no evidence of it at all. You certainly haven't read what J. Robert Oppenheimer said as he witnessed the first atomic explosion. He regretted that for the rest of his life because he was the physicist in charge of making the bombs which destroyed Nagasaki & Hirioshima, fission weapons which soon became the triggers for even bigger hydrogen bombs. Even now, scientists worldwide are making nuclear proliferation possible and threatening us all.

Science & technology are your new gods, Kerry. You still can't come to terms with your conversion to your new religion of scientism, and your hatred for anything else. Like most zealots, you'll say nearly anything to defend your new religion. Reason and logic are not part of your oeuvre.

[thesometimesaint]

Wade:

Kerry,

When you speak of "science" here, are you including the soft sciences (like psychology, socialogy, anthropology, economics, political science, etc.)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is no such thing as soft science

Edited August 16, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry A. Shirts:

It was the letter to Roosevelt from Einstein that gave the go ahead for the Atomic Bombs' development. It was the work of Edward Teller that gave us the Hydrogen Bomb.