Enslaved By Science

[DH]

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....

Heehee, I like it!

Edited August 20, 2012 by DH

[cinepro]

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.

Saying "God is the source of all Knowledge" might sound good in a philosophical sense, but in practical conversation, it is almost meaningless.

Sure, saying "God is the source of knowledge about how the planets move in the heavens" sounds majestic, but you're also saying that God is the source of knowledge about whether or not there is a rerun of "Two and a Half Men" on tonight, or the knowledge of the best way to steal money from an ATM machine.

Edited August 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Freedom]

Saying "God is the source of all Knowledge" might sound good in a philosophical sense, but in practical conversation, it is almost meaningless.

Sure, saying "God is the source of knowledge about how the planets move in the heavens" sounds majestic, but you're also saying that God is the source of knowledge about whether or not there is a rerun of "Two and a Half Men" on tonight, or the knowledge of the best way to steal money from an ATM machine.

Well, he is actually. I suspect God knows more about how to rip off an ATM machine than anybody alive. The question is, will he impart this sort of knowledge. The TV schedule may say that a certain rerun will be broadcast, but only God knows if, at the last minute, there will a glitch causing some other program to be played in its place by accident. There is knowledge that he controls (how the events of the flood unfolded) and knowledge that he directs to a degree, and knowledge of actions taken by his children. He is the source of all knowledge, but not necessarily the source of how all knowledge is put to use.

[Freedom]

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.

I do not quite get your second sentence, perhaps you missed out a word.

I think these two references suggest that God is bound by laws, laws that existed from before He was an exulted being.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Law

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-laws-of-god?lang=eng

[rodheadlee]

Science and religion (Heavenly Father) both saved my wife's life. Through personal revelation I was told my wife was terminally ill. Through the science (bestowed by God) of certain individuals she was cured. Even the oncologist said it was a miracle that we caught the cancer so early. I know it was a miracle that I got a personal revelation to start the whole testing scenario.

Edited August 21, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

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

There is not much to talk about once you label something a miracle save God's goodness...which is not a bad topic at all, just limited.

OTOH when we put something in the context of the natural world, there is a wealth of material to examine and explore.

One can approach science with as much wonder as "magic" (and I highly doubt that God works through magic btw, this is contradictory to what is taught by the scriptures and prophets).

Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

I think you are making faulty assumptions about the motivations of scholars who contribute to FAIR and NAMI.

[Freedom]

Perhaps the concern is that we are using science to reject God. God, in LDS teachings, adheres to higher laws, and we are bound by lower laws. I would concede that the scientific evidence is limited based on what can be observed, nevertheless, all the mysteries of God will be unfolded to us at some point. For this to occur, there has to be some sort of rational methodology to understanding His ways.

What science rids us of is false conclusions that are, by and large, passed down to us from the dark ages. Just because something has been in our beliefs for centuries does not mean that it is true.

As an example, science says that nothing travels faster than light, but doctrine suggests that God does travel faster than light. Is there a conflict? Perhaps, but I would rather argue that we are missing data from both the observable evidence around us and from the attributes of God as described in the scriptures.

The scriptural account of the flood if sufficiently vague that the scientific approach does not in anyway discount the story. It comes down to a problem of word choice in the thousands of years long translation and transcription process.

[volgadon]

I would humbly propose that this way of thinking has much to be learned from.

In Buber's adaptation:

A naturalist came from a great distance to see the Baal Shem Tov and said: "My investigations show that in the course of nature the Red Sea had to divide at the very hour the children of Israel passed through it. Now what about that famous miracle!" The Baal Shem Tov answered: "Don't you know that G-d created nature? And He created it so, that at the hour the children of Israel passed through the Red Sea, it had to divide. That is the great famous miracle!"

A more traditional form:

http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1394297/jewish/Sea-Bargain.htm

[Carborendum]

It is due to pride. A prideful interpretation of the oft repeated statement "Miracles are not violations of natural laws. They merely follow natural laws beyond our current understanding."

First, I'm not sure where the statement came from. I'm sure someone here could post it. I say that it is pride because of the part of the statement that is emphasized.

You can emphasize "not violations of natural laws". Then use science to try to figure out those natural laws that were involved.

OR

You can emphasize "beyond our current understanding". Then have the humility to admit we won't understand them for a long long time.

It is pride that makes people believe that we now have sufficient understanding to be able to explain all miracles--recorded and unrecorded. It is pride that will reduce the miraculous to a point where we can explain it by our weak, veil-shrouded, mortal understanding. It is humility that will admit that we still don't have all the pieces yet. We probably won't have enough for many thousands of years.

More examples of "explaining things away":

1) Jesus didn't really change the water to wine. He merely had enough connections to bring in the wine at the last minute.

2) He didn't really feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. He inspired the multitude to share what they had been hiding. Or, He just filled them spiritually so much that they only had a small morsel and felt filled.

3) Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt because she was at just the right location and time for a nuclear blast in the city to instantly dehydrate her causing all that remained to be a mass of various salts.

Hoh boy! I just don't know about these explanations. If I were an atheist, I would consider these more pathetic than the pure theist that simply insists they were miracles.

Here's a more palatable explanation using science to explain a basically scientific principle that was 'revealed'.

1) Joseph said that God "organized" the world rather than creating it out of nothing.

2) Hebrew scholars point out that the Hebrew word used in Genesis specifically means a type of creation man cannot do: "to make out of nothing".

3) Quantum physics says that energy is certainly different than matter, and therefore is nothing. But when it is ORGANIZED in the right form, it becomes matter.

This I can accept.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Carborendum

[blackstrap]

When science restricts itself to the observable,the experimental and the reproducible, it does quite well,hence the high degree of knowledge which has greatly improved the lives of humanity. Mind you,it has also allowed the massive destruction of millions.

When science delves into the unknowable ,it finds itself a odds with philosophy and religion. All ones needs to do is read how the " knowledge" of the cosmos is constantly being revised based on actual observations rather that speculations.

Consider gravity. It seems to be a universal natural force,but can man do something to counteract this force? Sure he can. Can God?

Does God suspend the law of gravity or does He do something to neutralize it? When the sun stood still ( the earth according to the BoM )

,what forces had to be acted upon to allow that to happen? Could a being who has control of all forces not be able to work that out?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Religion without science is blind.

As is the reverse.

[ERayR]

Religion without science is blind.

Whoa hoss this seems to be a statement of worship at the alter of science.

[happy]

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.

So are you saying God is some guy in a cave like the Wizard of Oz speaking to prophets through special pipes and electric microphones?

[ERayR]

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.

And that exact same science has made other errors too. It has not been all successes.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Whoa hoss this seems to be a statement of worship at the alter of science.

There is also geography (hope I spelled that correctly). Many have told me they believe the Bible because they know "where" it took place. This was in an effort to note that's we don't know where BoM took place. I explained that just because you know where something took place does not mean what was reported actually took place.

[ERayR]

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.

As marvelous as it appears any paltry science we can muster is paltry compared to God's so I don't recommend the worship if science as we know it. Just use what it produces and be glad you have it.

[ERayR]

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.

I think you touched on it but one should recognize science has it's limitation not the least of which is the nut interpreting the data.

[ERayR]

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.

True enough as long as one realizes man's science is barely at the kindergarten level, if that.

[Judd]

I believe the OP has some merit. As an LDS culture, we pride ourselves in some regards in being more liberal than our protestant counterparts in accepting 'science'. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. But, just like any other stance one takes, it does come with some side-effects. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario and such black-and-white thinking really goes against the ideal doctrines of science. There are a lot of issues that need teasing apart that aren't properly done so.

First, the definition of science. Science essentially has two big definitions that many tend to use interchangeably or where each definition encompasses the other.

Science: the 'natural laws' of the universe, if you will.

Science: a professional community of fields of study devoted to the discovery, experimentation and interpretation of the 'universe'.

There's a significant difference between the two definitions. Though they are not mutually exclusive, they're also not mutually inclusive. Because it would be preposterous to say that they are mutually exclusive, we sometimes unconsciously accept that its inverse (i.e. that they're mutually inclusive) must be true by process of elimination. So, when we think of science it's not uncommon to, unbeknownst to us, assume the two to be synonymous.

Second, science (as in the field of study) is an umbrella term that encompasses many different fields, beliefs and methodologies. It is by no means cohesive, though it's lack of cohesion fails to exclude diverging conclusions because what 'science' will acknowledge is the presence of many variables as well as many 'unknowns'. 'Science' is bound to have conflicting opinions, results, and conclusions. It's part of the process. It's what spurs debate and furthers examination.

Back to my point. Our dependence on science pulls us to find scientific validation of God's commands and subsequently leads us away from the mark and meaning of the original commands. I think this is most apparent in our quest for understanding things like the Word of Wisdom and fasting. We've come to enjoy 'science' validating many components of the WoW to such a degree that we scrutinize why God has given certain commands based on some arbitrary scientific finding. 'Science' is too intractably connected to the WoW out of culture that it is virtually impossible to separate the two from each other. The reason I think this misses the mark is that it leads to an unconscious notion that since science has 'verified' the WoW then therefore we should follow 'science' in its continual quest to aid our religious experience.

Why this is bad: we assume that God gives particular commands based off of our 'scientific findings'. E.g. God gave the command to abstain from tobacco because of x, y and z. Also, he gave a command to abstain from alcohol for q, r and s. As we view ancient Israel in hindsight, we have less of a tendency to scrutinize God's commands and simply acknowledge them as commands from God. We could argue that the reason the Lord commanded Israel to abstain from pork was an effort to keep their cholesterol levels low or perhaps to prevent the spread of trichinosis. Surely those may have been great byproducts of living the law, but I would assume most would realize that God's command, though potentially beneficial in one regard, was probably much more spiritual in nature. In our current day our proclivity for mental masturbation leads us to seek after these answer through arbitrary means and, in some regard, causes us to miss the mark. Instead of understanding the spiritual nature of commands and how, in humility, they may aid us in our desires to draw nearer to God, we instead focus our attention on making sure our beliefs are in accordance with, or can be verified by, an arbitrary collective community, of which community we mistakenly confuse for declaring the edicts of 'the laws of the universe'.

Religion without science is blind.

Then surely Moses was a fool.

God is bound by natural laws;

This is a common belief within LDS subculture. What are the natural laws? And, of those, is He bound by our 21st century understanding of them?

God, according to LDS teachings, works by simple means.

I agree. For example, a reflection of the beliefs of certain LDS subculture would include the Mormon myth of the sister missionaries being chased by thugs who jumped in their car and left. The story goes on to say something to the effect of the zone leader coming over and saying how amazing it was that the car started because there was no battery in it. Now, obviously this plays to the "miraculous" side of myths, but even simpler and just as miraculous would be the car having never had the battery taken out to begin with. In any case, small and simple means doesn't mean that's the only way God works, nor does it mean that the "simple" aspect is only simple to the understanding of men. Surely God can do whatever he wishes, simple or not (or, in this case, simple to the understanding of man or complicated to the understanding of man).

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.

This is akin to the following interaction:

Car mechanic: Well, I've fixed your transmission and placed new brake pads on your vehicle. Now let's do that coronary bypass!

Customer: You're not doing my coronary bypass, you're not a heart surgeon!

Car mechanic: Well since you're wanting to reject me doing your bypass then you may as well go set your car on fire, because those were the same hands that fixed your vehicle!

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.

As mentioned earlier about science being an umbrella term for a community of many different disciplines and methodologies, these comparisons are ludicrous as those two sciences are completely separate and use entirely different methods. The only thing uniting them is that they both fall under the collective umbrella of "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?

I'm not sure God's in the business of "arranging evidence". After all, it's only our present day science that seems to conclude certain ideas, so where would that leave the rest of humanity as far as 'evidence' is concerned? Now, myself, I don't think it really matters if the flood was local or global (though I believe in a global flood), and I don't think it really matters what one believes, as you said, that the bottom line is what you believe about Noah and his calling from God. The thing that I find funny, however, is when we conclude with our 21st century understanding that there's no way things happened different than we currently understand them, or that God went out of his way to make sure that nobody that's lived on the planet, save those born in our generation, had knowledge that the flood was local. Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he revealeth his secrets in ways that are measurable and perceivable unto man.

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.

While the scientific method may be the same, the methods themselves are not. Whatever the field, go open up a scientific journal. The communities of each field have controversial issues that there's conflicted evidence for, despite it being the 'same scientific method', different results come from different methodology.

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.

I have a very difficult time accepting that if man interpretations conclude, through observation, incorrect notions regarding the nature of God that somehow that results in a conclusion that God has 'deceived' his children. Herein lies the danger in these philosophies in that we've concluded in our own mind what has happened, and if it were not to be so it would not be that we were wrong but rather that God had deceived us!

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.

Okay, well again you're conflating fields because they fall under the umbrella of science. It's like saying the internet that streamed General Conference to your home also streams porn to your bedroom, so have at it. Also understand that within medicine itself the fields of study are very different, even when studying the same things. For instance, basic science regarding aspects of medicine is a very, very different world than clinical research, even though they're investigating the same things. Some things don't translate well from the bench to the bedside, which keeps these fields that many would confuse as being the same actually end up being rather different.

Science and religion Heavenly Father) both saved my wife's life. Through personal revelation I was told my wife was terminally ill. Through the science (bestowed by God) of certain individuals she was cured. Even the oncologist said it was a miracle that we caught the cancer so early. I know it was a miracle that I got a personal revelation to start the whole testing scenario.

Thanks for your contribution, Rod. What I appreciate about your post is the direction in which things flow, that being that through God's inspiration (both for inspiring you in addition to inspiring discovery) and through man heeding that inspiration, God is able to bring to pass His purposes.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Judd

[blackstrap]

Very well put Judd. Thanks!

[happy]

I agree. Judd put it very well. Thank you. I still believe there is a huge difference between the science of making an observable gear to make a working machine operate vs taking broken pieces of pottery and guessing what it was likely used for and how the surrounding society would have operated. My grand piano operates on scientific principles that can be observed in perfect form, repeatedly. The guessing game of why a large set of rocks were put together in some weird fashion that we call Stonehenge is an entirely different thing. If you ask me what a C note sounds like, I can play it for you, right now, and show you the hammer, the strings, and the action and repeatedly demonstrate the sound. With Stonehenge, one can not ask the makers themselves, the people involved, or any other evidences that can give you the perfect reason why it was built. You have to make assumptions based on dead evidence.

[Walden]

I think Freedom nailed it with this one, "What science rids us of is false conclusions that are, by and large, passed down to us from the dark ages. Just because something has been in our beliefs for centuries does not mean that it is true."

Science is consistently ridding us of the false conclusions that have been passed down to us from the dark ages, and is now commonly referred to as "religion." Science has ridded us of the false conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old. Science has ridded us of the false conclusion that the earth is the center of the universe (as taught by dark/middle age Catholicism). Science is ridding us of the fanciful "creation" myth, handed down for centuries as part of a belief system, in place of an evolutionary model in which the evidence for facts, such as the case with natural selection, is overwhelminingly proven by actual, empirical data.

Going back to the original question, I am not sure why believers feel the need to explain "miracles" through scientific means, but I would suggest it has something to do with the fact that science is quickly debunking the "false conclusions that are, by and large, passed down to us from the dark ages," and that there is a need by the religious to attempt to fight fire with fire.

[Freedom]

It is pride that makes people believe that we now have sufficient understanding to be able to explain all miracles--recorded and unrecorded. It is pride that will reduce the miraculous to a point where we can explain it by our weak, veil-shrouded, mortal understanding. It is humility that will admit that we still don't have all the pieces yet. We probably won't have enough for many thousands of years.

More examples of "explaining things away":

1) Jesus didn't really change the water to wine. He merely had enough connections to bring in the wine at the last minute.

2) He didn't really feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. He inspired the multitude to share what they had been hiding. Or, He just filled them spiritually so much that they only had a small morsel and felt filled.

3) Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt because she was at just the right location and time for a nuclear blast in the city to instantly dehydrate her causing all that remained to be a mass of various salts.

I do not think most people who want to apply the scientific method are guilty of this. The pursuit of knowledge, not pride, is what drives me to understand how events occurred .We call the turning of water into wine a miracle simply because we do not know how it occurred. The scriptures do not every say how it occurred other than to say that water became wine. You are accusing, I think, the scientific method of suggesting magic tricks for all the unexceptionable. This is not the case. These miracles are explainable through science because God has a greater understanding of physics than we do, and at this point in time we are unable to perform these 'miracles' with the knowledge we possess. At some point, we will learn and we will discover that these events were not quite so miraculous as the observers concluded. It is simply applying the rules of nature in a way we do not yet understand.

We now have a better understanding of how planets form and this better understanding fits quite will with the 1st chapter of Genesis and allows us to abandon the folklore that evolved before the data became available.

[ERayR]

I think Freedom nailed it with this one, "What science rids us of is false conclusions that are, by and large, passed down to us from the dark ages. Just because something has been in our beliefs for centuries does not mean that it is true."

Science is consistently ridding us of the false conclusions that have been passed down to us from the dark ages, and is now commonly referred to as "religion." Science has ridded us of the false conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old. Science has ridded us of the false conclusion that the earth is the center of the universe (as taught by dark/middle age Catholicism). Science is ridding us of the fanciful "creation" myth, handed down for centuries as part of a belief system, in place of an evolutionary model in which the evidence for facts, such as the case with natural selection, is overwhelminingly proven by actual, empirical data.

Going back to the original question, I am not sure why believers feel the need to explain "miracles" through scientific means, but I would suggest it has something to do with the fact that science is quickly debunking the "false conclusions that are, by and large, passed down to us from the dark ages," and that there is a need by the religious to attempt to fight fire with fire.

And sometimes replacing them with new and improved false conclusions.