Enslaved By Science

[happy]

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."

The real problem is the "progressive" believe that all change is good and that if knowledge is "old" it must be wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the observable measurable universe. As such speculations are the starting point in the quest. IOW; What if?

I don't know what you mean by counteracting gravity. We do use that natural force from everything from falling apples to spacecraft going to the outer planets.

There is no known force that would allow for the earth to stop and start again in a 2 day time frame.

Edited August 21, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

The real problem is that "conservatives" actually conserve nothing.

[Walden]

"And sometimes replacing them with new and improved false conclusions."

Yes, of course, science is a rigorous vehicle in which false claims are debunked by the discovery of new data, improved data collection models, new discoveries, etc. In that manner, science is continually self-correcting in an attempt to properly describe the world around us.

For me, this is preferable to the religious vehicle, which when faced with claims of irrationality, suspension of logic or flat out impossibilities (such as the Noah's Ark story), clings to the standard that these things are completely logical, rational and "real" because it says so in the Bible, or they have prayed about it and received a "confirmation", etc.

[happy]

Happy:

The real problem is that "conservatives" actually conserve nothing.

Beyond the false nature of your usage of the term (taking a conservative view has nothing to do with conservation), I was using it non-politically. There is a generalized theory of social progression that imagines that all changes to social policy are somehow good.

[Freedom]

The real problem is the "progressive" believe that all change is good and that if knowledge is "old" it must be wrong.

Knowledge not supported by the evidence or the text from which it sprang must be wrong. This is what science is doing for us. I see not reason to hold to beliefs that are not justified by the text or by science. The story of the flood, for example, as recorded in the bible does not justify a global event. The language of the text, and the supporting evidence of the science, tells us otherwise. Further, having it be a local or global event does not in any way affect the gospel message or the power and authority of God. The issue is conjecture and not encompassed by the fullness of the gospel.

[thesometimesaint]

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'.

Then surely Moses was a fool.

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?

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).

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!

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".

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

OK lets get down to brass tacks.

Science is the (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Scientists use that systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The Scientific Method is the core that binds all the differing fields of science together. There is not a different core for say astronomy and zoology. They of course are studying vastly different subjects but they both use the same Scientific Method.

There will always be outliers in any profession including the sciences. At one time Galileo was an outlier, until others were able to duplicate his experiments. One man(woman) acting alone can not establish science. It is its duplication by disinterested third parties that establish science.

I don't have a problem with God. I like him myself. But what I can not do is put God in my Scientific Method test tube and make it work. Let's do an experiment shall we? We both will burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I'll pray real hard for miniature flying pink elephants to come popping out, and you'll assume that water will come out. Now it is entirely possible for God to intervene and I'll get miniature flying pink elephants. But it is far more probable that you will be right, or that I did something terribly wrong. What do you think would happen if I tried to present my experiment to a gathering of chemists as proof of God?

I live the WoW, but I also know that there are facts that back up the idea that moderate use of alcohol can have mild positive health effects. Does that mean that there is no God? Of course not. But it does mean that we can live happy productive lives by either using, or not using, moderate amounts of alcohol. The choice is ours. Beyond moderate use there is no question that excessive amounts of alcohol are damaging not just to our bodies, but our mental health as well.

I don't use science to either validate or invalidate my belief in God. It's nice if it happens to validate it. But I sure don't depend on it. However if someone is claiming that God did "X" in the natural physical world. I am certainly capable of asking what that physical natural evidence looks like. IE; If someone claims that axeheads float. Then I would like to see natural physical evidence for them doing so.

In some ways Moses acted foolish. But I'd be the last person to say he was a fool.

Ultimate natural laws are those that apply to nature. I'm sure we don't know all the natural laws. However by definition whether we know them, or not, we are still bound by them. If you don't believe me try jumping out of a high place without a parachute. It is kinda hard to speculate from ignorance as to what God knows.

Is God trying to deceive us when in the Bible it has Pi as exactly equal to three, or that bats are birds?

[thesometimesaint]

Happy:

Beyond the false nature of your usage of the term (taking a conservative view has nothing to do with conservation), I was using it non-politically. There is a generalized theory of social progression that imagines that all changes to social policy are somehow good.

No "progressive" that I know of believes that.

[Walden]

Happy:

No "progressive" that I know of believes that.

Yes, I would love to see a reference from happy with regard to the "generalized theory of social progression that imagines that all changes to social policy are somehow good."

Whose "generalized theory" are you referring to, happy?

[mfbukowski]

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?

Those who think that science is to be preferred over religion are stuck in the 17th century.

Those who think that god is dead are stuck in the 19th century.

Those who think that science and religion are talking about different things are stuck in 20th century postmodernism.

I think it's time to get down to brass tacks, accept all of the above, take some action, and get to work creating meaning in our lives by understanding that we are gods in embryo following our Father and that all humanity including God are one.

But I suppose that will take a hundred years also.

[Verum]

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?

You talk as if "science" is some sort of top-down,authoritative power of its own. What's important is not so much science itself but more the method that is used for establishing fact or acquiring knowledge. It's a method that uses observation, experiment, measurement and the formulation of hypothesis, testing, etc. when investigating certain phenomena. Claims made in religious ideology can often be tested this way. Even Alma 32 invites everyone to "experiment" on the words of the Book of Mormon in order to receive knowledge of its truthfulness. So when someone claims that there was a global flood, this sort of claim can be studied, observed, tested, in some form. Sure, one can say no method is needed if you can get your answers from God, but even that claim is testable, can be observed, measured, etc. And since everyone appears to be getting different answers from God, a separate method needs to be in place for acquiring knowledge. Is there a better method?

Edited August 21, 2012 by Verum

[mfbukowski]

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

But that's what humans do- try to organize matter unorganized!

And what results is what we call "rationality" because it is all neat and tidy! It is more like "rationalizing" than anything

Edited August 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[happy]

No "progressive" that I know of believes that.

Then you don't know many. Abandonment of religion, abandonment of traditional marriage, abandonment of social curtsies like abstaining from using the F-word in public. Removal of gender roles, enforcement of an illusion of equality. Removal of once unifying holidays like Christmas. Abandonment of parental roles, abandonment of the role between parents and children. There is definitely a drive toward destruction of all traditions and values in some illusion that destruction of traditions and pushing for change is always good.

[happy]

You talk as if "science" is some sort of top-down,authoritative power of its own.

In effect, it does. By publishing ideas in mostly high end scientific terms and through controlled experiments observed by small groups of people, there can be an authoritative control over the civilian population through "call to authority". In basic terms, a Scientist can explain things in a limited fashion, but when confronted by civilians, can basically say "you are just too dumb to explain this to".

[happy]

Also:

So when someone claims that there was a global flood, this sort of claim can be studied, observed, tested, in some form. Sure, one can say no method is needed if you can get your answers from God, but even that claim is testable, can be observed, measured, etc. And since everyone appears to be getting different answers from God, a separate method needs to be in place for acquiring knowledge. Is there a better method?

This is an assumption. You are demanding that our scientific knowledge allows us to observe things directly created by God rather than simply a product of the natural system. That's very likely false.

Again, like "thesometimesaint" avoids at all costs, any belief in God eventually abandons natural law. The mere idea that a being can do anything claimed by the Bible or Book of Mormon will never be testable. That is where faith comes in. A single entity parted the Red Sea. This same entity ascended from Heaven without aid of jet packs and wings.

If I came to you today and said some guy just floated down from the sky and changed the weather, you'd call me nuts. You'd say "that's impossible".

Ask the Mythbusters. They already proved humans could not walk unaided on water. These concepts defy science. So to believe in them already admits that science has huge limitations it will never likely resolve.

[Walden]

In effect, it does. By publishing ideas in mostly high end scientific terms and through controlled experiments observed by small groups of people, there can be an authoritative control over the civilian population through "call to authority". In basic terms, a Scientist can explain things in a limited fashion, but when confronted by civilians, can basically say "you are just too dumb to explain this to".

How is this any different from religion, where a pope, prophet, guru, etc. claims that they have received revelation for all? By your account, the revelation regarding priesthood for blacks, received by a "small group of people" (the presidency of the church) who claims authoritative control over an entire population of mormons announces a revelation that only they have witnessed, is very much in teh same vein of the scientists that you take issue with. When confronted about the curious timing of the revelation, or the influence of the world on church practices, all that defenders can claim is that it is one of the mysteries of god, or that things are done in god's time, etc. No logic, rational thought or evidence, only essentially, "you wouldn't understand."

[DH]

Then you don't know many. Abandonment of religion, abandonment of traditional marriage, abandonment of social curtsies like abstaining from using the F-word in public. Removal of gender roles, enforcement of an illusion of equality. Removal of once unifying holidays like Christmas. Abandonment of parental roles, abandonment of the role between parents and children. There is definitely a drive toward destruction of all traditions and values in some illusion that destruction of traditions and pushing for change is always good.

Nonsense. If you know any progressives at all, they're pretty strange ones!

[mfbukowski]

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....

Boghossian didn't understand that it is all language, all the way down. It's nothing but words and which ones someone decides to use.

(Fear of Knowledge)- this is precisely his argument- but it is ultimately groundless. Boghossian himself eventually came to understand that this book was ill-conceived.

[mfbukowski]

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

Nah, it is even worse philosophically

[Freedom]

We are not using science to rationalize away God, we are using the scientific method to rid ourselves of false dogma. This method has been used to discover the original meanings of words that are used in the bible and has led us to understand the text quite differently. The church's position on homosexuality has changed no doubt in part from ongoing research concerning sexuality. It is the process of continually learning and looking at all the available data to gain understanding that we advocate.

[happy]

We are not using science to rationalize away God, we are using the scientific method to rid ourselves of false dogma. This method has been used to discover the original meanings of words that are used in the bible and has led us to understand the text quite differently. The church's position on homosexuality has changed no doubt in part from ongoing research concerning sexuality. It is the process of continually learning and looking at all the available data to gain understanding that we advocate.

The Church has not changed any position on homosexuality.

[Freedom]

In effect, it does. By publishing ideas in mostly high end scientific terms and through controlled experiments observed by small groups of people, there can be an authoritative control over the civilian population through "call to authority". In basic terms, a Scientist can explain things in a limited fashion, but when confronted by civilians, can basically say "you are just too dumb to explain this to".

You are confusing 'scientific community' with 'scientific method'. This is like saying 'doctor' and 'antibiotics' is synonymous. Perhaps you could provide an example of a peer reviewed scientific journal that oppresses the truth through controlled experiments so that we are not inclined to simply dismiss your comment as the ramblings of a radical conspiracy theorist. It almost appears that you are suggesting we put a stop to all academic pursuits because there may be some who have questionable motives. Do you have another suggestion on how we might better understand the world around us?

[mfbukowski]

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.

I agree with you completely, and it can go both ways. God can reveal to us the correct course when doctors differ on which course to take. I have had true diagnoses of physical problems revealed to me before the results were confirmed scientifically when doctors disagreed- and I knew what course to take correctly before it was later confirmed that the first two opinions were wrong. And what was revealed to me was a little-known solution to the quandry the doctors were not seeing as a possibility- I knew it before they did, and I felt the Lord's peace that I would be fine- only later did the doctors understand what I already knew to be true.

Call that what you will- if it be "magic", give me more of it! I know it was what we call the Holy Ghost, but that is Mormon Language.

[Freedom]

The Church has not changed any position on homosexuality.

Really? You need to do some homework

[happy]

Really? You need to do some homework

There is that concept I see so often. If one disagrees, it is because one is dumb, ignorant, unintelligent, or unschooled. It's a most curious of responses.