Enslaved By Science

[happy]

In another thread, people seem to need to create scientifically approved reasons why Joseph Smith had his vision. Why do we do that? Why is there this need to appease the Science God to justify our faith?

Top things we seem to need to get science's approval to believe:

1. A global flood - Instead of it being just the simple power of God to add or remove water through pure will, we need to see things like where the water came from, and how archaeological evidence matches. We ignore the fact a flood story has occurred in more than one culture and seem to want Science's permission to believe.

2. The parting of the Red Sea - Again, I see so much of a need for this to match science. Perhaps it was a drought and a low tide, or perhaps a big storm caused a sand bar to be exposed. This one is especially supposed to demonstrate the literal power of God. Jesus uses it as an example of a divine miracle, yet we dumb it down to simple naturalistic explanations.

3. Moses and the desert - This one is similar to the First Vision thread. That perhaps Moses wondering around in the desert caused him to hallucinate God.

I have seen apologists suffer from this. FAIR and to a more aggressive extend, the Maxwell Institute, both seem to try to secularize everything.

I am reminded of the moral of the "Never-ending Story".The "Nothing" was supposed to represent humanity's loss of hopes and dreams. And in my interpretation, a loss of magic. I remember recently reading an article on love. They are trying so hard to turn love into some simple chemical emotion. I am not sure I want to live in a world of sterile science and a notion that humans are just biological robots.

Why do we seem to hell bent on appeasing science? Are we to the point that religious ideology must get scientific approval? How is that not the philosophies of man (Science) mixed with scripture? And should all ideas get approval from science first?

[altersteve]

Religion without science is blind.

[Hamilton Porter]

troll

[Freedom]

I understand your sentiment, but there is no such thing as magic in LDS thought. God is bound by natural laws; on the contrary, many long held beliefs are based on false premises not justified by science or by the scriptures. God, according to LDS teachings, works by simple means.

[KevinG]

When I took the Graduate Management Admissions Test years ago there was a special category of question that did not require you to solve the problem but answer if there was enough information on the page to solve the problem.

I think we often try to answer questions without all the variables we need to solve the puzzle. Arguing science against faith is one of those cases. If we cannot know the answer to a complex concept or bit of reality arguing science vs. faith is like arguing which limited viewpoint is correct, when in reality we may just not have all the information to know the complete picture.

Evolution, the flood, genetic data for migrations... declaring we know other perspectives are wrong when we don't have all the information ourselves is hubris.

[happy]

I understand your sentiment, but there is no such thing as magic in LDS thought. God is bound by natural laws; on the contrary, many long held beliefs are based on false premises not justified by science or by the scriptures. God, according to LDS teachings, works by simple means.

First I am using magic in a more generic term, not Dungeons and Dragons style. Second, bound by natural laws does not mean man's science.

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

All you have to do then is turn off all your electricity, gas supplies, and water supplies(except for your bucket in your own well). Stop going to the grocery store, or any other store for that matter. Ride a horse bareback. Grow/hunt for all your own food. Refuse all modern medical care. Then your set for life without science.

[happy]

Happy:

All you have to do then is turn off all your electricity, gas supplies, and water supplies(except for your bucket in your own well). Stop going to the grocery store, or any other store for that matter. Ride a horse bareback. Grow/hunt for all your own food. Refuse all modern medical care. Then your set for life without science.

That has nothing to do with the topic.

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

It has everything to do with it. I am perfectly happy to use science, and greatly appreciate the contributions it has made to make our lives far more productive and easy.

I don't believe in magic, and I sure don't believe in a God that says one thing and then tries to deceive us, his children, by doing another.

Now turn off your computer because the exact same Scientific Method that proves that a Global Flood is a physical impossibility gave you the computer.

Edited August 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[happy]

Happy:

It has everything to do with it. I am perfectly happy to use science, and greatly appreciate the contributions it has made to make our lives far more productive and easy.

I don't believe in magic, and I sure don't believe in a God that says one thing and then tries to deceive us, his children, by doing another.

Now turn off your computer because the exact same Scientific Method that proves that a Global Flood is a physical impossibility gave you the computer.

Why do you need to be childish and insulting? It has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is about miracles and faith needing permission from science to be right. It has nothing to do with man's inventions. There are many different areas of science. It isn't an all-or-nothing concept.

[KevinG]

It is not science we are enslaved by as much as an irrational need to be able to explain infinite concepts on limited terms.

[happy]

It is not science we are enslaved by as much as an irrational need to be able to explain infinite concepts on limited terms.

Kevin, I think my point is that we seem to believe science will answer all questions and if science and religion part ways, we assume religion is always wrong. Concepts of miracles and spirituality leave the scope of science because science does not handle laws of nature changing. It almost demands they remain forever constant. For example, a floating angle defying the laws of gravity would not sit well within scientific scrutiny.

[changed]

... there is no such thing as magic in LDS thought. God is bound by natural laws; ....

I'm LDS, and I don't think God is bound by natural laws. I think he helped make the natural laws. I also believe there is such a thing as a miracle, I won't call it magic, I will call it God's doing and nature's though.

Edited August 20, 2012 by changed

[altersteve]

I guess I don't feel like I have much to say in this thread because I tend to not separate science from religion too much. They both testify of Christ so I see no problem with using both.

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

Why do you need to be childish and insulting? It has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is about miracles and faith needing permission from science to be right. It has nothing to do with man's inventions. There are many different areas of science. It isn't an all-or-nothing concept.

I'm sorry if I came across as childish. It was never my intent to insult you or anyone else on this MB. I simply disagree with your premise that I'm in any way a slave to science that is in any different way than anyone living in 21st century America isn't.

I'm fine with miracles, but I don't need miracles to make science work. I am fine with the flood being a massive albeit regional flood. That idea is consistent with Noah being a Prophet of God, doing what God told him to do in building a boat, and reporting what he saw.

Sure God could have used miracles just like our KJV of the Bible claims. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Yes there are different areas of science, but they ALL use the exact same Scientific Method. They wouldn't be science if they didn't. You logically can't use/claim the benefits of science while at the same time dismissing the very method that gave you those benefits.

Edited August 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[happy]

I'm sorry if I came across as childish. It was never my intent to insult you or anyone else on this MB. I simply disagree with your premise that I'm in any way a slave to science that is in any different way than anyone living in 21st century America isn't.

Telling me to basically shut up and turn off my computer was unnecessary. Thank you for your reply though.

I'm fine with miracles, but I don't need miracles to make science work. I am fine with the flood being a massive albeit regional flood. That idea is consistent with Noah being a Prophet of God, doing what God told him to do in building a boat, and reporting what he saw.

But the question is why do you need to reduce the miracle in order to (in my words) appease Science?

Sure God could have used miracles just like our KJV of the Bible claims. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

There is a difference between erasing evidence vs the event being of such a supernatural event that when the event occurred and the laws of nature bent to the will of God, it did not produce the same levels of evidence that traditional views of science are expected to see.

Yes there are different areas of science, but they ALL use the exact same Scientific Method. They wouldn't be science if they didn't. You logically can't use/claim the benefits of science while at the same time dismissing the very method that gave you those benefits.

I disagree. The creation of a personal computer operates on a principle of "now" science. It does not require speculation or theories on past events. The fundamental nature of that very difference makes your somewhat aggressive stance wrong. I can reject the science that explains archaeology and our origins, but still agree with modern medicine.

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

I don't see it as a reduction. If anything, to me it seems that God using the sciences to achieve his spiritual goals gives far more credit to God than a series of miracles does. To me, claiming that miracles are just some type of magic goes against my way of thinking/believing.

If a flood is real(natural) then there is some natural evidence of it happening. IE; In 1955 there was a massive flood in northern California. There is still physical evidence of that flood. For a Global Flood that physical evidence should be everywhere, and massive but it's not. It is just the opposite. I'm fine with God knowing more science than I do. I hope and believe he does. But I believe he doesn't willfully deceive us his children.

Actually it does. Without the pre-existing theory of atomic structure, and energy transference by electron jump the computer wouldn't exist. The science of archaeology is founded on what we find in the natural world, as is the science of evolution. Of course you can reject them, but in that rejection you are rejecting the exact same science that gives you modern medicine.

Edited August 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[happy]

If a flood is real(natural) then there is some natural evidence of it happening.

How far are you willing to take it? How can a man create a flood in the first place? Did he need bulldozers? Did he use explosives to blast a mountain apart and allow water to flood a valley? How did he get there? Does he have a space ship or something? Is he just a powerful alien?

When does the "magic" stop and the natural start? You seem to be creating a barrier that is as fluid as you need it to be.

Actually it does. Without the pre-existing theory of atomic structure, and energy transference by electron jump the computer wouldn't exist. The science of archaeology is founded on what we find in the natural world, as is the science of evolution. Of course you can reject them, but in that rejection you are rejecting the exact same science that gives you modern medicine.

Incorrect. The "pre-existing" theory of atomic structure is constantly observable. Again, that is a "now" science. Watching the vibrant city of Jerico during the biblical time period is impossible without simulation, speculation, or ultimately a time machine.

[DH]

Why do we seem to hell bent on appeasing science? Are we to the point that religious ideology must get scientific approval? How is that not the philosophies of man (Science) mixed with scripture? And should all ideas get approval from science first?

Science is not philosophy--it is a method of ascertaining truth by quantifiable means. It is not necessarily the only method of ascertaining truth, but it is a valid one.

As I said in a different thread, to a large extent, science and religion are about different things. So I do not seek "the approval of science" on religious matters, nor do I seek the approval of religion on scientific matters. However, if both science and religion are offering answers to the same question, chances are I will favor the answer that has the most and best evidence to support it.

For example, in Anglo-Saxon England, illness was often attributed by believers in the fairy faith to "elf-shot"--arrows shot by elves at humans. Healing involved removing the elf-shot and protecting the victim from getting shot again. However, because modern science provides more tangible and visible evidence to support its idea that germs cause many illnesses, I tend to prefer modern medicine's explanation. Adherents of ancient paganism might consider modern medicine to be a threat to their faith, but hey, I'll go with the most convincing evidence.

Edited August 20, 2012 by DH

[happy]

Science is not philosophy--it is a method of ascertaining truth by quantifiable means.

Whatever attributes you want to assign to science, both have similar goals. Both want to know the origin and purpose of the universe. Both simply approach the questions differently.

[DH]

Whatever attributes you want to assign to science, both have similar goals. Both want to know the origin and purpose of the universe. Both simply approach the questions differently.

That is true. Science is willing to admit when it was wrong and change what it says according to the evidence. Religion tends to be much slower to do so.

I like the old adage, "There's no such thing as a failed experiment." You may not get the results you had expected or wanted, but at least you learned something from it, which is the goal.

Edited August 20, 2012 by DH

[cinepro]

For example, in Anglo-Saxon England, illness was often attributed by believers in the fairy faith to "elf-shot"--arrows shot by elves at humans. Healing involved removing the elf-shot and protecting the victim from getting shot again. However, because modern science provides more tangible and visible evidence to support its idea that germs cause many illnesses, I tend to prefer modern medicine's explanation. Adherents of ancient paganism might consider modern medicine to be a threat to their faith, but hey, I'll go with the most convincing evidence.

You could always seek legitimacy for the elf-shot theory of illness by calling it "alternative medicine" and encouraging people to use it as a "supplement" to scientific medicine....

Edited August 20, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

I'll go as far as it needs to go. Sure man can make a flood. Either by intention or inattention. Build a dam we flood the area behind the dam. Destroy that dam and we flood the area in front of that dam. That is intention. Allow through inattention that dam to be over topped by water, or structural compromised by leakage and we made a flood. No magic, and no miracles involved. Simple science.

I can walk, ride a bicycle, drive a vehicle, fly in an airplane. I'm a good swimmer, at least I used to be before I became disabled, but I can still take a boat. We've landed men on the Moon, our spacecraft have landed on and exploring Mars, and our spacecraft have traveled beyond the furthest planet in this solar system. It is all just simple science no magic or miracles involved.

That is what makes it science. If I dig up the bones of a dead animal that animal lived. They were real. There is physical(natural) evidence that they lived.

While no one so far has literally seen an electron. The theory of them is or should be enough to state that they exist. Further we use electricity every day, even if no one has ever literally seen an electron let alone watched it jump.

I don't need to literally watch the city of Jerico during Biblical times. I can see the ruins, look at the personal effects, run scientific tests to determine age. That and more convinces me that Jerico was once a vibrant city.

[Freedom]

First I am using magic in a more generic term, not Dungeons and Dragons style. Second, bound by natural laws does not mean man's science.

Why are you assuming that 'man's science' is not Gods science since God is the source of all knowledge? I prefer to believe that God reveals doctrines of salvation through prophets and doctrines of creation through scientists.

[altersteve]

Happy, you keep assuming people are holding beliefs or opinions that they may or may not hold. Why do you do that?