Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[Kerry A. Shirts]

What do you think continuous revelation, line upon line, is if not striving towards, and progressively working on, improvements?

BTW, you seem constantly to be talking about some abstract power or movement called "science." In real life, science is just as plagued by authoritarian submission to dogma; by personal ambitions or ploitics; and fears and prejudices as religion is.

So WHY is nothing improving then?! Here again, science has the track record. What has improved with revelation line upon line in the world? Terrorism is now a fundamental fact of life, thanks to religious fanaticism. Our country has been sliding for years into third world status, and religion continues to try and ruin the Constitutional separation of church and state with the lie that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and deserves to be taught. If we really are receiving revelation line upon line, why is it the world is actually not a better place BECAUSE of said revelation? I can see an astonishing amounts of improvement thanks to the ipod and ipad and cell phones! This has literally connected the world, as has the internet just over 20 years ago and the advent of the computer in all fields of human interest, just since 1973. I see science improving our knowledge in what the universe is like, what the earth is really like, etc. And, the real kicker, we all get to benefit from it, even though some continually downplay science in order to try to maintain faith.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Writing. You use it.

Can this be demonstrated? I suspect evolutionary development and newer technologies from styluses and clay tablets to metal, and on into paper is a more realistic interpretation of the scientific aspects involving the rise of writing and literacy.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You haven't read Orson Pratt, apparently. He addresses this. He says that God is every particle in the universe.

As Jesus told his disciples, they would never come to know Him until he died and let the Holy Spirit do the work. (John 16:7.)

The essential conflict between "science," as you call it, and "religion" as you call it was the conflict in the New Testament between life and the resurrection (or raising people from teh dead). The resurrection is not verifiable by science, yet it has been done and has been attested to by witnesses.

But, for the same reason the "Big Bang" essentially describes a creation event, so is God undoubtedly "science." "What is truth?"

True, Pratt said that, but Brigham corrected him.

I simply disagree with the rest of what you say also. But then, that's the price of reading so much science. Once religion attempts to make the two equal then anything goes, and especially science, incorrectly interpreted through religious lens.

[volgadon]

Religion didn't fly people into buildings, science did. Did faith cause an airplane to materialise?

Don't you see how silly your line of reasoning can get?

[WalkerW]

The irony of you using science (your computer) to say science has not done as much as I have noted is indeed fascinating to me. Pray tell, do you drive a car too? Telephone, ipad or ipod? fax? In an office building? Watch television?

You've used similar examples in past posts, but it should be pointed out that technology and science are not the same thing. Often in times past, technology came first, while the scientific theories behind them came later.

If we took your conflation of science and technology, then science provides the weapons and tools for "the wars, bloodshed, genocides and infantcides, and flying of airplanes into buildings" you mentioned before.

[volgadon]

Can this be demonstrated? I suspect evolutionary development and newer technologies from styluses and clay tablets to metal, and on into paper is a more realistic interpretation of the scientific aspects involving the rise of writing and literacy.

The historical, literary and archeological records of antiquity all attest to the religious impetuus behind writing.

[volgadon]

So WHY is nothing improving then?!

Says who?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Well, of course, if your version of Mormonism is evangelical and creedal, there is nothing more to be said. In such case, you have predestined the LDS faith to failure on a logical basis. But that version of Mormonism which you apparently posit is a completely phony version. One would have thought that the "Back Yard Professor" would be further along than that.

I am pointing to the illogical conclusion of BCSpace saying there is no contradiction between Mormonism and science. Science today says what I noted above, and I KNOW this is incompatible with Mormon doctrine. I said nothing about whether Mormon doctrine is true or not, it is about what science says right now, which directly refutes BCSpace's claim. That is what I am pointing out, not the correctness of Mormon cosmology. That is entirely another issue.

[WalkerW]

Also, recent archaeological discoveries point to temple worship rather than agriculture as the origin of civilization.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Says who?

Then once again, what is religion improving as opposed to science? We claim the revelations are pouring in almost literally every single day, so, what is changing in the world right now because of those revelations? And please do not go to the idea that downtown SLC is getting a new mall and facelift. I mean for the world, not their own city they build unto themselves for whatever reasons. I can see plenty in the world that science has been doing, but what about religion?

[Evangeline]

Pray tell what accomplishments have religion accomplished besides the wars, bloodshed, genocides and infantcides, and flying of airplanes into buildings recently? The comparison of accomplishment is so lopsided as to be astonishing.

Much of the music, art, literature, architecture, dance, etc. that we enjoy today has its origins in religion. Religion has brought so much beauty to our lives. To ignore this is foolishness.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

From a sociological/anthropological standpoint (cf. Durkheim), everything communities do is "religious" in nature; culture and ritual are inseparable (see Miner's classic monograph on the Nacirema tribe). It is an extreme misunderstanding of science to think that it can empirically measure how much "harm" has been caused by religious extremism. How would you reproduce it? What's the control? How are we isolating the "causes"? Are we just supposed to take it on faith that "science" has produced less harm than "religion"?

In the case of terrorism, are we taking religious rhetoric about the "purpose" of such at face value, and if so, should that automatically eliminate other causal factors, especially when we have to factor in unconscious "motivations"? (By the way, can we weigh a "motive"? Can we demonstrate one in a lab? If not, then how are we falsifying the hypothesis that it was "religious" in nature?)

There are simply too many variables to just roundly condemn a monolithic "religion" (which religion?) as being inferior to a similarly monolithic "science" (as performed by who?).

Yes, there has been terrible evil done in the name of various religions, whether those religions are theistic or not (and let's please not make the parochial mistake of thinking that all religions must have a "God"). There has also been terrible evil done in the name of no religion. But again, from an anthropological perspective, these are all religious actions justified by whatever linguistic construction of "truth" or "righteousness" the murderers appeal to. How can we possibly separate what is "caused" by "religion" from what is "caused" by other factors? It is a grossly unscientific question.

"Science" has given us tremendous benefits. So has "religion." And they have both been used as an unimpeachable authority which cannot be questioned. That's just what humans do, and it's why we have to stress the fallibility of our religion (cf. D&C 1, inasmuch as we err we will be corrected from time to time; continuing revelation, etc.) and our science (through strict reproduction of experiments). I think there is unmeasurable good done in the world as a result of religion and science; to try to make them fight is just playing into the hands of partisans who can't see the good in their supposed "enemies."

You might say it's a kind of religious fanaticism which demonizes "religion" and proclaims that "science" is the One True Church.

Edited July 22, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Evangeline]

Then once again, what is religion improving as opposed to science?

Ask that question to all the people who have received relief from a religious charitable organization.

[volgadon]

Then once again, what is religion improving as opposed to science? We claim the revelations are pouring in almost literally every single day, so, what is changing in the world right now because of those revelations? And please do not go to the idea that downtown SLC is getting a new mall and facelift. I mean for the world, not their own city they build unto themselves for whatever reasons. I can see plenty in the world that science has been doing, but what about religion?

What about religion? Religion's greatest contribution is between man and man. In Operation Cast Lead, a soldier was killed by friendly fire from a tank. The father, a very observant Jew, wrote the guilty soldiers a heartfelt letter asking them to forgive themselves. He had already forgiven them, he said, as he couldn't perform his duties to God, while leaving his brothers guilty, hated and unforgiven.

If you want to look at charity, while serving a mission I was the go-between for a recent convert and the church humanitarian services. She initiated projects which allowed the blind to provide for themselves better, and to improve conditions in orphanages. An RM and bishop in Ukraine organised many grasroots projects to increase kindness and better relations between people in the country. The list goes on.

[cinepro]

Much of the music, art, literature, architecture, dance, etc. that we enjoy today has its origins in religion. Religion has brought so much beauty to our lives. To ignore this is foolishness.

If I paint a beautiful picture of a rock, would you say that the picture has its "origins" in the rock, or that the rock "has brought so much beauty to our lives"?

I agree that peoples' feelings towards God and religion have given us countless wonderful works of music, art, literature etc. But I'm not sure that this means we should attribute those works to "religion."

[volgadon]

If I paint a beautiful picture of a rock, would you say that the picture has its "origins" in the rock, or that the rock "has brought so much beauty to our lives"?

I agree that peoples' feelings towards God and religion have given us countless wonderful works of music, art, literature etc. But I'm not sure that this means we should attribute those works to "religion."

Ripped out of context, things lose much of their meaning.

[WalkerW]

Ripped out of context, things lose much of their meaning.

Quite so. For any interested, I highly recommend philosopher Roger Scruton's Beauty (Oxford University Press, 2009). One can get a feel for the book by reading his City Journal article "Beauty and Desecration" or watching his BBC Special "Why Beauty Matters."

[Evangeline]

I agree that peoples' feelings towards God and religion have given us countless wonderful works of music, art, literature etc. But I'm not sure that this means we should attribute those works to "religion."

Western European music, for one example, has its origins in liturgical plainchant (including the Gregorian chant of the Roman Catholic church). This does not simply have to do with people's "feelings" towards God -- it was (and still is) an integral part of the worship service. It is the reason for its existence! The modern music notation that we use today grew out of this tradition. Any 100-level university course on the history of western music will show how much of the music we enjoy today evolved from the "simple" beginnings of monophonic plainchant.

Many of the famous composers in the European classical tradition would not have had a job without their ecclesiastical patrons. Much of the music that J.S. Bach wrote was written for the Lutheran church services, for example.

And then there's the amazingly beautiful sacred music of the Hindu tradition, the Jewish, the Buddhist, the Islamic, etc. etc.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Evangeline

[Storm Rider]

Then once again, what is religion improving as opposed to science? We claim the revelations are pouring in almost literally every single day, so, what is changing in the world right now because of those revelations? And please do not go to the idea that downtown SLC is getting a new mall and facelift. I mean for the world, not their own city they build unto themselves for whatever reasons. I can see plenty in the world that science has been doing, but what about religion?

This type of question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of any religion, much less the restored gospel. For one to be educated and so ignorant demands some significant blinders. Revelations, religious teaching, scriptures are completely without value if you choose to ignore them, do not live by their principles or teachings. What you posit is that because there is revelation you must necessarily see an affect on people regardless of their choice to follow it or not. Get real here, K.

Also, you never provided any evidence for your initial statements; either you put up or...stop talking. Your position is built from a house of cards, not even sand for a foundation, just the thoughts of man.

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course it is, but that is precisely why it being PUBLIC is self correcting. There is no authoritarian hierarchy who dishes out the knowledge and proclaiming that all must follow them and obey their teachings. Yes scientists can be extremely dogmatic and authoritarian, but they cannot get away with it for long, because other scientists the world over can refute them with no fear of retribution of an eternal hell or something. It all truly does come out of the wash in spite of them wanting dogmatism. This is why scientific knowledge works so well in all areas.

Nonsense. You are all over the place here, both admitting and denying the foibles of science and technology. Indeed, scientism can and has been deified in many places, but it is a false god, and you will find it betraying you the same way any phony baloney system betrays its adherents. The authoritarian academy worships at the feet of Alfred Nobel, it serves the military-industrial complex heart and soul, it cynically uses power for personal gain and for vengeance against enemies. Science & technology make the spread of porn, human trafficking, and drugs virtually unstoppable. Preening scientists lie, cheat, and steal their way to august positions and titles. I love science and technology, but then so does Hugh Hefner -- and if you think he cares at all about morals, I feel very sorry for your coming disappointment.

The Roman empire lived for the glory of conquest through their superior science and engineering, murdering whole cities and peoples, not much different than their Nazi admirers. Hedonism and the worship of power brought both down to destruction, but look at how many they took down with them. Science & technology are useful tools, not gods to be worshipped, lest we lose all sense of perspective.

[Larry Woods]

Science Wears Blinders

From a comment on this subject, "Science will eventually grow to find God." I don't think so. So-called science intentionally wears blinders. By definition, at least for some, science deals only with that which is physically observable. Scientists refuse to accept any evidence for anything except that which comes from the physical world. So science, at least this closed-minded version of it, refuses to accept any evidence not strictly physical and then proclaims they see nothing beyond physical. That seems a little circular, doesn't it? That amounts to extremely huge blinders since far more of the universe exists beyond the physical realm. Let me give you an example, I accept principles as evidence. If I can come to understand a principle within myself, I can accept that as evidence. Evidence of what? Many things, such as the existence of God.

What other kind of evidence is out there that science refuses to accept? How about the spirit world? Countless people "cruise" the spirit world daily. Joseph Smith, of course, and other Presidents of the Church reported spirit world experiences. Robert Monroe is another well known example but there are far more. Near Death Experiencers constitute another large group with spirit world experience. According to the Gallup Poll, nearly a fifth of Americans have experienced time in the spirit world brought on by many different circumstances. Many Mormons and others glimpsed the spirit world from time to time in connection with various types of service.

For example, my sister many years ago sought to serve her daughter. She agonized over whether she should leave her husband. She discovered he had cheated on her. But she was afraid to have her daughter grow up without a dad. She cried herself to sleep night after night praying she could make the right decision. One night, her mother-in-law came and sat down on her bed. The mother-in-law had died over a year before. She comforted my sister and told her that her husband would be going through some very rough times in his life and it was better that she divorce him. This would be better for the child and for my sister. Then the mother-in-law, who had died from alcoholism, got up and walked out from the room.

Many years later my sister died. But then she came to talk with me one time with a special message that proved to be very comforting for her two daughters and for me. Are these types of experiences hidden? No. You can find countless books, many written by first-hand experiencers, detailing spirit world transactions. I have no doubt you personally know someone who had such experience or you may have experienced such things yourself. In fact, I find it a lot of fun to read all those non-Mormons basically talking Mormon doctrine when they report their spirit world experiences. Also, study of Near Death Experiences over many years has shown me that God loves ALL people, not just Mormons or Christians or any other specific group.

So many people report direct experience with the spirit world. What other kinds of evidence do we see out there that goes beyond the physical? Well, the astral/emotional body we use in the spirit world gives us much information but we also have yet another type of body which is more refined than the astral/emotional body even as it is more refined than the physical. That would be the mental/mind body. Our intellect can give us many types of evidence. Our intellect can also, at times, reach up into the Intuition and bring down important principles. Einstein and many others report this phenomena. Einstein called it the "cosmic experience" and said it was the greatest experience known to man. Edison reported it a little differently. He said when he concentrated on solving a problem, he would sit up for hours in the dark at night until the answer came to him. He said it distinctly came from a source other than himself. As a singer-song writer, I find that with my music. My best songs feel more like I found them than wrote them.

Yet some scientists refuse to accept such evidence; even though the reports are just as solid as any reports they review of "physical" evidence. But, the point I make is that when we confine ourselves to pretend that certain types of evidence do not exist, then we can expect to draw skewed conclusions.

As far as I can tell, we have three bodies. First our physical body. Next our spirit or astral/emotional body. Finally our mental/mind body. Each exists within its own kind of world and is a creature of that world. Each has senses that operate within its native realm. Each has dangers of "sin" or error associated with it. The physical body has appetites. When used within sensible context, those appetites bless us. But if we spend our lives following those appetites around, our lives become bestial and selfish. Our astral/emotional body grants us many pleasures also. But if we follow our me-emotions around, we live "soap opera" lives. If we move up to our inclusive emotions governed by our hearts instead of our bellies, then we live much more satisfying and productive lives. Let us call the temptations of the emotional/astral body glamours. Finally, our mental/mind body gives us a lot of good information and logic. Our mental/mind body can guide us to more far reaching goals. For example, logic may guide us to wait until we establish a regular income before we make babies. However, our minds can also run astray. We can find ourselves operating on flawed facts or flawed logic that leads us to false conclusions. Let us call mental/mind temptations illusions.

Yet one obvious fact for all these bodies is, they are not the real us. These are all merely vehicles for the child of God whom we really are. Our three bodies bring us much experience. All parts of our nature lead us into experience which makes us step by step wiser and closer to understanding who we really are. Each experience gathered thrills God. We believe that ultimately, we are God. Within each of us exists the divine spark of who we really are, a piece of God. That would indicate, logically, that there is ultimately only one life, that of God. We are broken off reflections out gathering experience. Every experience grows God's wisdom and understanding and thrills him and her with newness. "I make all things new."

I believe in God because I accept many kinds of truth beyond merely the physical plane. I reject any outside authority that tells me I must limit my vision or my evidence. I believe Jesus was right that the Kindom of God is "within".

Your brother,

Larry Woods

[Robert F. Smith]

The irony of you using science (your computer) to say science has not done as much as I have noted is indeed fascinating to me. Pray tell, do you drive a car too? Telephone, ipad or ipod? fax? In an office building? Watch television? Get information on the internet which the entire rest of the world does, and which science is literally getting rid of dictators which religion has failed to do? Wherein have I over exaggerated science accomplishments?

Technology and engineering is not science, and science does not get rid of dictators. Those who control the technology are more likely to remain in power than to be overthrown. The surveillance state is already upon us and they are watching you now.

The only reason we have an inkling of what the universe is really like is not because we read the Book of Abraham cosmology which bros Peterson, Hamblin, and Gee have shown was the ancient and incorrect geocentric view, (gee, why doesn't God ever just tell the facts correctly to man?) but because we use spectral lines in science, hence learning their chemical compositions on their surfaces, the space telescope, giving us a much clearer picture about reality than any vision ever recorded in antiquity or since.

You didn't bother to read the next chapter in that book, which is far more relevant and is written by men who actually understand science: http://maxwellinstit...d=40&chapid=162 , which shows that the BofA is not geocentric. Geocentrism was the regressive dogma established by Claudius Ptolemeos, who was non-Christian. That geocentric dogma dominated the West until the Renaissance because the scientific establishment refused to budge from it. The Church was merely the tool used by that establishment to beat down and intimidate anyone challenging the authoritative view -- something your beloved Victor Stenger neglected to tell you.

The mathematics to learn of the beginning, unfolding, and potential future of the universe, etc. The only reasons we know much about anything these days is not due to prayer, but to science. Not due to religion which keeps rehashing the ancient stuff that is so out of date none of us subscribe to the morality of those people, but to science which has opened up the entire world (literally) to knowledge. Pray tell what accomplishments have religion accomplished besides the wars, bloodshed, genocides and infantcides, and flying of airplanes into buildings recently? The comparison of accomplishment is so lopsided as to be astonishing. The only thing more astonishing is the people who obviously cannot see it for bias and fear of offending someone somewhere. I am simply giving credit where credit is obviously due.

Whenever your next close family member comes down with a serious life threatening illness, just go ahead and use your faith alone to have them healed. Talk to the church and have the congregation pray for them if you wish. Do anything you like EXCEPT use today's science. Go ahead, Show me your faith and instead of relying on science, get healed by faith. No doctors, no medicine, no pain killers. Good luck, yer gonna need it.

And what is the proper sphere of science? Gould's NOMA is obviously incorrect as many scientists have shown. Morality in the religious sphere alone? Not even true. Science can observe people and their interactions and has as much a claim to that sphere as religion ever had. Cosmos? Anytime religion starts talking about creation of space and time and material, science has that sphere also. Healing? Medicine is science's realm, not religions. Reading ancient scripture? Nope, science also belongs in that sphere. Just which spheres does science belong in.

This is a completely unbalanced appraisal. I know of no basis for high morality and ethics in science (and neither did the late Bertrand Russell), except for the morality which scientists were taught as children and which has carried over. There is no reason to believe that it will be transmitted to the next generation. The new religion of scientism will be the cold, impersonal pragmatism of eugenics and the like. God help us!!

Edited July 22, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

Also, recent archaeological discoveries point to temple worship rather than agriculture as the origin of civilization.

Would be interested in reading about these discoveries. Can you reference sites?

[Calm]

Morality in the religious sphere alone? Not even true. Science can observe people and their interactions and has as much a claim to that sphere as religion ever had.

Kerry, I would be very interested to understand how you see science as creating morality. It is something I do not understand in what you are discussing.

For an example that you could use to help me understand: a man stands in front of a burning building. Inside a child is screaming for help. He has no way of knowing whether or not he could survive attempting to rescue the child. What scientific principle would help him make that decision? There are religious principles that could, depending on which he holds he may attempt a rescue or not, but as far as I am aware there is nothing in science to help him judge the value of that action. How would you apply science if you were in his place?

PS: I am not claiming there are no nonreligious moral systems that could be applied in this case. I am simply asking specifically how science would create a morality as it appears you are stating above.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

Then once again, what is religion improving as opposed to science? We claim the revelations are pouring in almost literally every single day, so, what is changing in the world right now because of those revelations? And please do not go to the idea that downtown SLC is getting a new mall and facelift. I mean for the world, not their own city they build unto themselves for whatever reasons. I can see plenty in the world that science has been doing, but what about religion?

Here's something: http://www.lds.org/church/news/mormon-helping-hands-groups-around-the-world-praised-for-efforts?lang=eng