Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[supersnail]

Yes Mormonism is completely incompatible with MANY scientific theories. Why do you constantly repeat this as if repeating it makes it true? Science posits NO GOD as creator of the universe. It can arise through quantum tunneling and self organizing principles based on laws of physics that we KNOW are accurate. You tell me how that is compatible with Mormonism. Go ahead, show me the evidence.

I hesistate to indulge this argument further because I will probably sound like a broken record to you. Maybe we can grapple with this stepwise. Do you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between saying quantum mechanics posits that God did not create the universe, and saying that quantum mechanics does not posit that God created the universe. The meanings of these two sentences are quite different.

Clearly, if someone alleges that quantum mechanics posits that God did not create this universe (and is true), Mormonism is incompatible with *that* claim, but saying such is tautologous.

Edited August 1, 2012 by supersnail

[zerinus]

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

Science doesn't work; God works. Scientific discoveries are also made by revelation from God.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure I understand the question. But when a seemingly new science enthusiast acting like Stephen Jay Gould never said anything on this topic claims that a scientific theory, about a particular facet of reality, precludes God's influence, they are not only making a claim outside the scope of that theory and the scientific method, but also saying something that suggests irreconcilable contradiction within science itself. The reasons why have been discussed in previous posts in this thread.

Mormonism is not incompatible with any scientific theory. It just isn't. If it is, then name the theory and list the theoretical propositions that Mormonism is incompatible with, and if I feel up to it maybe I will explain again why you might as well say that Mormonism is incompatible with a gravitational theory.

Agreed.

My question to you was actually tongue-in-cheek, and was intended to underscore my earlier point that while Kerry is a great advocate of science, his approach in this thread has ironically been anything but scientific.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

There are no accepted natural laws that "allow" an entity with free will to affect a ball's motion while it is falling to the ground, and there were no accepted natural laws in the 1700s that would have "allowed" me to use an electric fan to cause a ball to float in the air.

Does anyone actually think the point of the story of Resurrection was to illustrate a natural law pertaining to biology or chemistry?

Science has to do with theories that scripture does not purport to replace. Science admits unknown principles, and no scientific theory rules them out. Mormonism is perfectly compatible with science.

Actually there was known laws in the 1700's. Shall we discuss the history of Balloons?

I don't but I accept that there are no known laws that allow for it. God probably knows a few more laws than I do, but for whatever reason hasn't seen fit to tell me them.

Religion by definition is the acceptance of the Supernatural. Science by definition can not use the Supernatural. I accept that someday we will see that compatibility, but today probably isn't that day.

[Eldwynn]

Religion by definition is the acceptance of the Supernatural. Science by definition can not use the Supernatural. I accept that someday we will see that compatibility, but today probably isn't that day.

The day that science confirms not just religious belief, but Mormon doctrines, is the day I will join you in Sacrament meeting. Until then, as a reasonable human being, I am left with the conclusion that all religions are equally objectively true. That is to say none of them have empirical evidence in the way that my other beliefs (like the earth orbits the sun) do.

Since the Book of Mormon apparently happened on the planet earth, I don't think it's impossible to prove it's truth as objectively as we prove anything else in archaeology or other branches of science.

I think it would be great if that happened, but I think it would have happened by now.

[thesometimesaint]

The day that science confirms not just religious belief, but Mormon doctrines, is the day I will join you in Sacrament meeting. Until then, as a reasonable human being, I am left with the conclusion that all religions are equally objectively true. That is to say none of them have empirical evidence in the way that my other beliefs (like the earth orbits the sun) do.

Since the Book of Mormon apparently happened on the planet earth, I don't think it's impossible to prove it's truth as objectively as we prove anything else in archaeology or other branches of science.

I think it would be great if that happened, but I think it would have happened by now.

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

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

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

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

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

[mfbukowski]

If you are going to simply tell me science if incomplete and we can complete our knowledge through faith, I have already been doing that for decades, and that doesn't work. But yes, we will talk.

No I am not going to say that at all. We are going to discuss what science can and can't do. I don't want to talk about faith- just epistemology. This is not about faith, it is about what we can know and how we know it.

[mfbukowski]

The day that science confirms not just religious belief, but Mormon doctrines, is the day I will join you in Sacrament meeting. Until then, as a reasonable human being, I am left with the conclusion that all religions are equally objectively true. That is to say none of them have empirical evidence in the way that my other beliefs (like the earth orbits the sun) do.

Since the Book of Mormon apparently happened on the planet earth, I don't think it's impossible to prove it's truth as objectively as we prove anything else in archaeology or other branches of science.

I think it would be great if that happened, but I think it would have happened by now.

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

[wenglund]

The day that science confirms not just religious belief, but Mormon doctrines, is the day I will join you in Sacrament meeting. Until then, as a reasonable human being, I am left with the conclusion that all religions are equally objectively true. That is to say none of them have empirical evidence in the way that my other beliefs (like the earth orbits the sun) do.

Why are you relying on an instrument that is calibrated solely to the physical, as a means for confirming the spiritual? Doing so defies reason and certain fundamental principles upon which the scientific method rests.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Why would you ever assume you could "complete knowledge"? Who told you anything could ever manage that? There is always something more to learn, more to know.

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

[Kerry A. Shirts]

No I am not going to say that at all. We are going to discuss what science can and can't do. I don't want to talk about faith- just epistemology. This is not about faith, it is about what we can know and how we know it.

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

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Science doesn't work; God works. Scientific discoveries are also made by revelation from God.

He says while typing on a computer that shows umpteen hundreds of thousands of people what he says.......... the irony here is incredible. Do you drive an automobile too? WHY? It obviously doesn't work either. Never mind doctors, air conditioners, heaters and water softeners also.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I hesistate to indulge this argument further because I will probably sound like a broken record to you. Maybe we can grapple with this stepwise. Do you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between saying quantum mechanics posits that God did not create the universe, and saying that quantum mechanics does not posit that God created the universe. The meanings of these two sentences are quite different.

Clearly, if someone alleges that quantum mechanics posits that God did not create this universe (and is true), Mormonism is incompatible with *that* claim, but saying such is tautologous.

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

[shalamabobbi]

And its evidence and success has been absolutely OVERWHELMINGLY positive. Television is one example (which, incidentally even ALL of the brethren use during General Conference). Medicine and immunization is another one. Science has provided VAST relief of intense suffering from immunization against measles, smallpox, diptheria, flu, etc. When did mere prayer offer that much comfort to the afflicted with disease by removing it from hundreds of thousands? Atomic physics is another area which has led us to discover many laws of the universe that STILL WORK, conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, gravity, light, you name it, science has discovered many laws that work, and based on that sure knowledge that they work, we went to the moon, rovers to mars, space telescope in orbit to show us vastly more than ANYONE has ever let alone by being led by the spirit to see it all. Must I go on?

Ah Television.. invented by a mormon BTW which is why the brethren utilize it. (That's a joke son).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

After reading through this thread I think you're confusing the realms of application between science and religion. Science can reveal to us knowledge about the world in which we presently find ourselves. Religion deals with existence beyond the veil and requirements pertaining to acceptance with God there.

Science is based upon experimentation and modeling and has utility in its predictive capability.

Religion is testimony based and the evidence is acquired individually.

[shalamabobbi]

That is certainly true of Evolution as it is envisaged by the “scientists”. From their stand point, Evolution is entirely a random process; therefore by definition there is no “design” behind it.

Point of clarification here. Evolution is not an entirely random process. The *search* function may be random but the selection filter is not. It is the two combined that is the process of evolution.

Those who believe that Evolution and Creation are or can be “compatible,” need to redefine the meaning of Evolution in such a way that is both different from the “scientific” definition, as well as being credible, as well as being compatible with Creation. They haven’t done that. The scientific definition of Evolution is not compatible with Creation, because it is defined as a random process. Creation is not random. So they need to come up with a different definition, and they haven’t done that yet, as far as I know.

If I take a random search I can re-create a work of Shakespeare. I start with a random mess and make random alterations to that mess. If the outcome is closer to the desired goal I keep that revision and throw out the rest. Do this over and over and the book will be *created* in a reasonable passage of time.

[shalamabobbi]

I personally like this definition of "truth."

D&C 93:24

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

Using this definition, the scientific method seems to be, by far, the best method of arriving at truth. In fact, it seems that revealed knowledge is constantly being revised, jettisoned, or declared not to have been revealed in the first place due to objective facts learned through the scientific method. If you think I'm wrong, then please identify any previously unknown objective face that has been given to the world through revelation to Mormon prophets.

Plate techtonics, well at least the idea or concept of plate techtonics. It existed first in the D&C way prior to acceptance by geologists.

[zerinus]

He says while typing on a computer that shows umpteen hundreds of thousands of people what he says.......... the irony here is incredible.

I don't see that you are addressing my point. I said that scientific discoveries also come by revelation from God. You haven't disputed that. So do you agree with me that they all came by revelation from God?

Do you drive an automobile too?

Yes! Your point being?

WHY?

Why not?

It obviously doesn't work either. Never mind doctors, air conditioners, heaters and water softeners also.

I still don't see your point. Sure they all work; but that doesn't mean that they didn't come from God.

[Calm]

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

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

If you are going to simply tell me science if incomplete and we can complete our knowledge through faith, I have already been doing that for decades, and that doesn't work.

[KevinG]

Maybe God just doesn't want to talk to Historians?

[Calm]

Ah Television.. invented by a mormon BTW which is why the brethren utilize it. (That's a joke son).

http://en.wikipedia....hilo_Farnsworth

His granddaughter was a roommate at BYU, you would think the family would be rich beyond one's wildest dreams....not so.

[Calm]

Until then, as a reasonable human being, I am left with the conclusion that all religions are equally objectively true. That is to say none of them have empirical evidence in the way that my other beliefs (like the earth orbits the sun) do.

If one chooses to limits one's activities to solely those that have empirical evidence for them, life is going to be very limited.

[mfbukowski]

His granddaughter was a roommate at BYU, you would think the family would be rich beyond one's wildest dreams....not so.

My son just married a cousin a couple of times removed, (I think).

I guess that now makes you and me family. Welcome to the family!

[ERayR]

The day that science confirms not just religious belief, but Mormon doctrines, is the day I will join you in Sacrament meeting. Until then, as a reasonable human being, I am left with the conclusion that all religions are equally objectively true. That is to say none of them have empirical evidence in the way that my other beliefs (like the earth orbits the sun) do.

Kind of like using an air gauge to measure electric current don't you think.

[supersnail]

Actually there was known laws in the 1700's. Shall we discuss the history of Balloons?

I don't but I accept that there are no known laws that allow for it. God probably knows a few more laws than I do, but for whatever reason hasn't seen fit to tell me them.

Religion by definition is the acceptance of the Supernatural. Science by definition can not use the Supernatural. I accept that someday we will see that compatibility, but today probably isn't that day.

The distinction being made here between the natural and the supernatural is actually a bit tangential. The fact that genetic engineering or animal husbandry is not incompatible with evolution, or that me using an *electric fan* to suspend a ball in midair wouldn't have been incompatible with gravity in the 18th century even though there were no *accepted* natural laws *in the 18th century* that explicitly "allowed" such a feat, has nothing really to do with human intervention being supernatural or not. When it comes to Mormonism, suddenly God is supposed to be incompatible with evolution.

I am not saying animal husbandry is compatible with evolutionary theory because animal husbandry is supernatural. Animal husbandry is compatible with evolution because evolution does not answer the non-biological part of the "how" of animal husbandry in the first place and doesn't preclude it. From a strictly scientific standpoint, animal husbandry is explained by sociology, among other fields. As a biological theory, evolution may have nothing to say about sociology, but that does not make animal husbandry impossible. Taken to its logical conclusion, the notion espoused by a few here would lead to saying animal husbandry is incompatible with evolution even though animal husbandry makes use of natural laws involved in evolution (as God may do so in other ways). It is a notion that, despite glorifying scientific theories, seems remarkably uninformed about those theories and the philosophy of science.

At its broadest, evolution is a principle applying to many, many things, including things we have not observed (not just H. sapiens and not just this planet for that matter). At the same time, it describes a particular facet or aspect of reality, and doesn't exclude other things, processes, principles, or laws, that aren't integrally relevant to the theory.

Regarding the origin of humans specifically, evolutionary thought in biology answers, how could H. sapiens have come about? It answers the question without addressing God. It does not rule out God's influence. It doesn't require the non-existence of God's influence. It could be true, or true enough for all practical purposes, regardless of the creation story. Evolutionary theory by itself does not and cannot show God had nothing to do with producing ideal conditions for evolution to begin, or with any of the theoretically non-random or stochastic events leading to the first human, for example. Moreover, the evolutionary ideas involved in contemporary animal husbandry would have validity regardless of the extent to which the creation story is literally true.

I kind of agree with you that this is going nowhere, particularly as the OP is concerned, but I believe there are uniquely Mormon answers to these questions that are worth exploring. And that is not the same thing as saying Mormonism is validated by any particular scientific theory more than another religion or denomination is. The fact that general relativity has nothing to say about Mormonism versus another religion does not mean God cannot plan, organize and direct a world where natural laws also play a role, a role that is perhaps both unavoidable and desirable at the same time.

[Ahab]

Regarding the origin of humans specifically, evolutionary thought in biology answers, how could H. sapiens have come about?

It gives the wrong answer, though. What good is a wrong answer to a question? Hopefully they'll keep looking for the right one.

It answers the question without addressing God.

Still the wrong answer, though. We are of God, and without knowing that, we don't know what we really are.

It does not rule out God's influence.

Well, that may be one good thing about it (evolutionary thought).

It doesn't require the non-existence of God's influence.

Well, that may be another good thing about it.

It could be true, or true enough for all practical purposes, regardless of the creation story.

It's not, though, except on the micro-evolution level.

How many more wrong answers do you thimk it will take before they throw out their ideas on macro-evolution?

Evolutionary theory by itself does not and cannot show God had nothing to do with producing ideal conditions for evolution to begin, or with any of the theoretically non-random or stochastic events leading to the first human, for example. Moreover, the evolutionary ideas involved in contemporary animal husbandry would have validity regardless of the extent to which the creation story is literally true.

Good points.

I kind of agree with you that this is going nowhere, particularly as the OP is concerned, but I believe there are uniquely Mormon answers to these questions that are worth exploring.

The key is to know who to ask to gain knowledge of truth, rather than just getting some pet theories from some people which make some sense to those people. Not everything that is logical is true, and it helps to know the difference between truth and imagination.