Enslaved By Science

[mfbukowski]

The writer had a satellite with a digital camera and downloaded it through googleEarth.

The same way the Nephites knew they lived in a narrow-neck of land without ever having left its 500 x 200 miles.

Is D&C 133 now suspect? You tell me.

I don't know what this has to do with 133

And you can walk 500 miles from one coast to another- you do it a little bit farther north and suddenly you find that the walk is now 1000 miles- that has absolutely nothing to do with seeing how something across the sees "fits into" what you are experiencing.

This says nothing about the argument I am making.

[ERayR]

I think Genesis was a tad earlier considering that draws from Columbus and is dated what- 1513?

From what I understand it is a copy of a much earlier original whose where abouts is unknown.

[mfbukowski]

From what I understand it is a copy of a much earlier original whose where abouts is unknown.

Does anyone think that but von Daniken?

Even that hypothesis sounds awfully fishy- and to top it off, it doesn't show S America "fitting into" S America as far as I can see.

You have the "point" of Brazil but the African "inney" to Brazil's "outy" isn't there.

And honestly, I think spacemen would have done a much better job!

Edited August 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ANACO]

In other words, you can answer neither my question, nor Calmoriah's.

Apparently not. Do you have more questions than answers? That's easy.

[ANACO]

I don't know what this has to do with 133

And you can walk 500 miles from one coast to another- you do it a little bit farther north and suddenly you find that the walk is now 1000 miles- that has absolutely nothing to do with seeing how something across the sees "fits into" what you are experiencing.

This says nothing about the argument I am making.

Oh, I always considered verse 24 to be of some help - in the context of the entire section - which talks about islands and the great deep. Seems to be geology lesson in some sense of the spiritual.

24

And the

a

land

of Jerusalem and the land of

b

Zion

shall be turned back into their own place, and the

c

earth

shall be like as it was in the days before it was

d

divided

.

Which days should one be considering? Before Noah? Before Adam? Before Abel? Before Israel was restored in '48?

Maybe Volgadon can look up Peleg in his Hebrew "Thesarus." Is that a reference to "division" in a societal event or other? ..since it appears Peleg was named after something along divisionary lines.

[ERayR]

Does anyone think that but von Daniken?

Even that hypothesis sounds awfully fishy- and to top it off, it doesn't show S America "fitting into" S America as far as I can see.

You have the "point" of Brazil but the African "inney" to Brazil's "outy" isn't there.

And honestly, I think spacemen would have done a much better job!

Yes it seems so but there seems to be several theories of origin. A quick google turns up a lot of info. Here is a couple I found interesting.

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

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

[ERayR]

Oh, I always considered verse 24 to be of some help - in the context of the entire section - which talks about islands and the great deep. Seems to be geology lesson in some sense of the spiritual.

24

And the

a

land

of Jerusalem and the land of

b

Zion

shall be turned back into their own place, and the

c

earth

shall be like as it was in the days before it was

d

divided

.

Which days should one be considering? Before Noah? Before Adam? Before Abel? Before Israel was restored in '48?

Maybe Volgadon can look up Peleg in his Hebrew "Thesarus." Is that a reference to "division" in a societal event or other? ..since it appears Peleg was named after something along divisionary lines.

One could debate about whether this is actual land masses or the combining of peoples back to original homelands.

[volgadon]

Oh, I always considered verse 24 to be of some help - in the context of the entire section - which talks about islands and the great deep. Seems to be geology lesson in some sense of the spiritual.

24

And the

a

land

of Jerusalem and the land of

b

Zion

shall be turned back into their own place, and the

c

earth

shall be like as it was in the days before it was

d

divided

.

Which days should one be considering? Before Noah? Before Adam? Before Abel? Before Israel was restored in '48?

Maybe Volgadon can look up Peleg in his Hebrew "Thesarus." Is that a reference to "division" in a societal event or other? ..since it appears Peleg was named after something along divisionary lines.

I don't know what a "thesarus" (sic) is. If you mean thesaurus, why the quotation marks?

While D&C 133:24 can be read the way you do, are you sure it must? After all, the whole sequence from 18-25 is a geographical jumble. Perhaps it is because I am lying apostatologist scum, but I see something else at play, not that I pretend to know all of it. As I read it, Zion is to prepare itself to meet the Bridegroom, it is to be gathered out of all places that are spiritual Babylon before the Lord redeems the world in His might and restores the world to a pure and holy state. Unity, not of land mass, but of hearts and minds. Unity of all generations, past and present.

As Rabbie Burns said,

Then let us pray that come it may,

(As come it will for a' that,)

That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,

Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.

For a' that, an' a' that,

It's coming yet for a' that,

That Man to Man, the world o'er,

Shall brothers be for a' that.

My favourite Israeli artist, Ehud Banai, has a song in English, which I find relevant.

http://www.ehudbanai.co.il/?lang=eng&p=discography&SongID=41

The Hebrew bits translate as follows.

And it will be in that day, a new great light will shine

Slowly a crack appears, slowly falls the wall

And when that hour arrives, one will come in the name of One

All the world will recognise and know one language

Speak the language of the Hebrew man.

And it will be in that day, one will come in the name of One

All the world will recognise and know one language

The house is slowly built, line to line, letter to letter,

Say not to me, "bye bye," say "l'hitraot"

Speak the language of the Hebrew man.

[Alvino]

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?

1 Peter 3:15. Besides that, science and rationality in general are big tools that have had an incredibly good reputation as means to understand the natural world.

If you don't want to give reasons for your faith using these methods, no problem, but, can you really blame people who see in many of the findings and rational inquiry and science great conflicts with their religious beliefs? Why do you think this is a bad enterprise?

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.

The reason is that if you fly in the face of science the more educated folks won't take what you say about the world seriously and we value science and rationality today a lot and that's increasing. You don't need science's approval to believe whatever you want, but at the risk of not being able to convince anyone else and making it harder for those that believe similar things you believe to keep believing when confronted with evidence.

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.

Two of my favorite quotes:

"The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice. If you take your children for a picnic on a doubtful day, they will demand a dogmatic answer as to whether it will be fine or wet, and be disappointed in you when you cannot be sure. The same sort of assurance is demanded, in later life, of those who undertake to lead populations into the Promised Land. [...] But so long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues. For the learning of every virtue there is an appropriate discipline, and for the learning of suspended judgment the best discipline is philosophy." -- Bertrand Russell

"If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search.” -- F. Nietzsche

Now, those two quotes are interesting and, if you ask me, beautifully written by two amazing writers, both of whom were atheist. If you read both you'll realize they are not doing science but both recognized the value of science. Every time someone mentions things like the ones you said here I have serious doubts whether they have read any philosophy, good novels, watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos, or are interested in any pursuit of art because for none of these do you need to believe the 'magical' actually exists. As dry as you think science may be, that is only a small part of what humans like and do and can do. Try to look a little bit more into these things and you might not get such a grim picture out of these increasingly scientific and secular times.

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?

Again, if you want to have your beliefs considered something more than a believe held for the love of the "magical", then yes. Or you could try and justify your religion on philosophical grounds, which is more interesting, IMHO.

[Jeff Walsh]

This is not the point at all. It is not that the bible is just a myth, but rather that many long held interpretations of the bible are myth. For example, it was long believed that Moses was literally in the wilderness for 40 years. Because our understanding of ancient hebrew has advanced over the past 20 years, we now understand that the repeated use of the measurement `40 years` is not to be taken literally but rather as a very common figure of speech. Likewise, access to the manuscripts that most likely produced the King James version of the bible reveals that the world was created in 7 periods of time rather than the mistranslated 7 days. This knowledge comes to us via the scientific method.

There are many mysteries in the scriptures that as yet cannot be explained by science, but there are many misconceptions of the scriptures that have been set aside through science. Evolutionary theory suggest complete randomness however it cannot be proven so I can accept the evidence of evolution but set aside the un-provable theory of randomness. I accept the restrictions apparently set upon the observable universe of the speed of light, but because I read the source material, I have come to realize that this rule is anything but absolute. Every paper I read on it concedes there are contradictions to this rule that have yet to be worked out. There are even papers that propose alternatives to this rule as ways to explain the contradictions. If you read the social media accounts of what science is saying, you will hear what the editors what you to hear. If you read the actual research, the picture is much less clear.

So you are saying that evolution is a faith based theory not based on fact, you are also guilty of believing what some scientists are saying. The reason that there are many mysteries in the scriptures that cannot be explained by science is that the revelations of God are given by the person that has all knowledge of this earth because he brought it into existence. The arrogance of some branches of the the scientific world that they are the fount of all knowledge is truely staggering.

By the way I do notice that you do not address any of the questions I asked Waldren, you are demanding answers from us as to why we belive in "myth" lets have some answers from you. I have not seen any evidence that God does not exist, but looking around our beautiful earth and the delicate balance that keeps it in existence I see very much evidence that He does.

By the way are you as familiar with the Bible you obviously do not believe in as you are apparently with the "scientific" papers you claim to believe. If you were then there is lots of evidence that the 40 years are meant to be taken litterally, how long would it take for the whole of Israel to pass away except for a couple of people?

And while we are on the subject of so called "myths" there is evidence all around you, if you would only open your eyes to see, of the fact that Noah's global flood did occur, if I thought that you would not just gloss over these facts I would take some time to go through some of the evidence, Let me just point you to a book called "The Genesis Flood" co-authored by Dr John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morriss both well respected scientists who present in their book 518 pages of evidence that is staring you in the face. So come lets have some answers from you and Waldren other than every changing speculations given by atheistic men for ever searching but never coming to TRUTH. Jeff Walsh.

[Hamilton Porter]

Happy needs to study hard and apply herself in order to be a more effective troll.

[happy]

Happy needs to study hard and apply herself in order to be a more effective troll.

You do know your own actions are far more trollish than you imagine mine to be, right? Instead of actually discussing the topic, you simply keep calling people a troll. That by definition IS trolling.

[Hamilton Porter]

You do know your own actions are far more trollish than you imagine mine to be, right? Instead of actually discussing the topic, you simply keep calling people a troll. That by definition IS trolling.

You're an obvious Godless communist pretending to be a fundy. Troll.

Leave the trolling patrolling to us. You are out of the thread.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

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.

To worship science is a type of idolatry. Definitely not something I recommend.

[Walden]

You would have to admit that science has confirmed religious beliefs.

For example, the Word of Wisdom pertaining to health, the discovery of extrasolar planets, continental drift.

Yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[thesometimesaint]

Waldren are you saying then that science has all the answers and the Bible is just a Myth, are you also taking God out of creation and saying that this is a scientifically proven fact.?

You do say that Creation by God is a fanciful myth based on a belief system, if you are then let me ask you a few questions, and see if in fact science has been factually proved and those of us who accept creation by God have to accept this by faith.

Does science say that the earth came into being by a "big bang" by chance, did life begin on this earth by the chance coming together of the myriad of sub microscopic particles of dead matter and become that first cell, several billion years ago, how did these dead bits of substance suddenly aquire some sort of life force

If then as you say evolution through natural selection purely by chance took place without any outside help over myriads of time, came through all the so called links and finish up with mankind as we know today. Are all these proven facts, where is your evidence do you have a science "bible" which is verifiable?

Where are all the millions of missing links? Can you tell me how an eye can evolve, can you tell me how a whale evolved ? can you tell me where the dinosaures came from and how they suddenly became extinct? Can science produce life from dead material. How do you account for the spirit, or do you not believe in such a myth.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that science does not have all the facts and that darwinian evolution is a faith system and quite frankly takes more faith to belive in than it takes to believe in God. And by the way to believe that mans' intelligence came from man himself is the height of arrogance.

Surely what we all should be seeking for is TRUTH, and to my mind all TRUTH comes from God who shares this with science. Looking forward to being enlightened. Jeff Walsh

Depends on how you define myth. IE; There is good evidence that King Arthur really existed, but that the various myths that grew up around him. not so much.

It doesn't take much science to see if the earth is real. God making the earth takes a whole lot more evidence than we currently have.

No that isn't what the sciences say about the Big Bang. The earth didn't have to exist at all, and there was still the Big Bang. The slight preference to matter over antimatter(1 part in 10,000) made what we know as the physical universe.

See Abiogenesis

I guess if you believe that a couple billion years is sudden. We have very different ideas as to what sudden is.

Natural selection is not chance, nor is it random.

See evolution of the eye.

There are not millions of missing links. While there is still lots to learn about exactly how evolution worked in practice, there is no debate amongst scientists, including the LDS ones, that it does work.

I have no problem with science, and I have no problem with God. So maybe it is just your ideas about God and nature that need to be re-evaluated.

I certainly hope and believe I will learn a lot more than I do now. However my God doesn't play tricks with the universe in order to deceive us.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I always considered verse 24 to be of some help - in the context of the entire section - which talks about islands and the great deep. Seems to be geology lesson in some sense of the spiritual.

24

And the

a

land

of Jerusalem and the land of

b

Zion

shall be turned back into their own place, and the

c

earth

shall be like as it was in the days before it was

d

divided

.

Which days should one be considering? Before Noah? Before Adam? Before Abel? Before Israel was restored in '48?

Maybe Volgadon can look up Peleg in his Hebrew "Thesarus." Is that a reference to "division" in a societal event or other? ..since it appears Peleg was named after something along divisionary lines.

As you yourself have shown, there are many other ways to interpret this without continental drift- since the original author could not possibly have understood continental drift at the time this was written.

[mfbukowski]

1 Peter 3:15. Besides that, science and rationality in general are big tools that have had an incredibly good reputation as means to understand the natural world.

If you don't want to give reasons for your faith using these methods, no problem, but, can you really blame people who see in many of the findings and rational inquiry and science great conflicts with their religious beliefs? Why do you think this is a bad enterprise?

The reason is that if you fly in the face of science the more educated folks won't take what you say about the world seriously and we value science and rationality today a lot and that's increasing. You don't need science's approval to believe whatever you want, but at the risk of not being able to convince anyone else and making it harder for those that believe similar things you believe to keep believing when confronted with evidence.

Two of my favorite quotes:

"The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice. If you take your children for a picnic on a doubtful day, they will demand a dogmatic answer as to whether it will be fine or wet, and be disappointed in you when you cannot be sure. The same sort of assurance is demanded, in later life, of those who undertake to lead populations into the Promised Land. [...] But so long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues. For the learning of every virtue there is an appropriate discipline, and for the learning of suspended judgment the best discipline is philosophy." -- Bertrand Russell

"If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search.” -- F. Nietzsche

Now, those two quotes are interesting and, if you ask me, beautifully written by two amazing writers, both of whom were atheist. If you read both you'll realize they are not doing science but both recognized the value of science. Every time someone mentions things like the ones you said here I have serious doubts whether they have read any philosophy, good novels, watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos, or are interested in any pursuit of art because for none of these do you need to believe the 'magical' actually exists. As dry as you think science may be, that is only a small part of what humans like and do and can do. Try to look a little bit more into these things and you might not get such a grim picture out of these increasingly scientific and secular times.

Again, if you want to have your beliefs considered something more than a believe held for the love of the "magical", then yes. Or you could try and justify your religion on philosophical grounds, which is more interesting, IMHO.

Well all I have to say is that I have never heard of Nietzsche and Bertrand Russel quoted as if they agreed with each other.

You couldn't have picked any two more polar opposites. Put them both in a room and I am think Nietzsche might have actually murdered Russell, but it definitely would have been an "interesting" exchange to say the least.

[Alvino]

Well all I have to say is that I have never heard of Nietzsche and Bertrand Russel quoted as if they agreed with each other.

You couldn't have picked any two more polar opposites. Put them both in a room and I am think Nietzsche might have actually murdered Russell, but it definitely would have been an "interesting" exchange to say the least.

They might have agreed on some things, not on others. The point is that both were just as committed to epistemic virtues and fought against 'magical', non-serious thinking. What Happy is portraying in the OP and in his comments is a grim picture of the world he thinks secular folks who value science are committed to. He is clearly unfamiliar with the plethora of writers and scientists who were against "magical thinking" but still happened to be some of the most artistic and passionate human beings around.

Actually believing in the "magical" is one of the most irrelevant aspects of the religious experience. Most religious folks are mistaken in believing that they have a monopoly in their reactions to religious art and, IMHO, that is the primary protector of religious belief. But they are mistaken. Imagine how unexceptional believers would feel the Spirit to be, how natural what they thought to be more than worldly nature, if even atheists could have the same strength and kind of reactions to religious art and symbols while being totally atheist.

[ERayR]

Does anyone think that but von Daniken?

Even that hypothesis sounds awfully fishy- and to top it off, it doesn't show S America "fitting into" S America as far as I can see.

You have the "point" of Brazil but the African "inney" to Brazil's "outy" isn't there.

And honestly, I think spacemen would have done a much better job!

I don't buy Von Donikin but it came from somewhere perhaps some of those very early sea voyages that weren't happening.

[ERayR]

As you yourself have shown, there are many other ways to interpret this without continental drift- since the original author could not possibly have understood continental drift at the time this was written.

We really have no way of knowing what he knew or did not know.

[cinepro]

Pretty tricky when that was written before there were maps which showed South America "fitting" into Africa, etc.

It was about divisions of people- unless you can explain how the writer of Genesis got a birds-eye view of continents.

Does this count?

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

Book of Moses Chapter 1

And from official Church publications....

(4-22) Genesis 10:25 . Was the Earth Divided in the Days of Peleg?

“The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere. By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time. Of course, there have been many changes on the earth’s surface since the beginning. We are informed by revelation that the time will come when this condition will be changed and that the land surface of the earth will come back again as it was in the beginning and all be in one place. This is definitely stated in the Doctrine and Covenants. [ D&C 133:18–20 is then cited.]” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5:73–74.)

Old Testament CES Manual

(55-32) Revelation 16:20. “And Every Island Fled Away”

The notion prevails quite generally that the dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg was a division politically among the people, but from this word of the Lord we gain the idea that the earth itself was divided and that when Christ comes it will again be brought back to the same conditions physically as prevailed before this division took place.

The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles

(18-21) Isaiah 62:4–5. Why Will the Lord Call Israel “Hephzi-bah” and “Beulah”?

According to the Doctrine and Covenants, there will come a time when “the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided” (D&C 133:24). In the days of Peleg the earth was divided into continents (see Genesis 10:25), but before that time it was all united in one land mass. The joining of the continents once again can be likened to a union or a marriage that is both hephzi-bah and beulah, that is, delightful and united. The lands, like a man and woman in holy wedlock, will be sealed by the authority of the one officiating (see JST, Isaiah 62:4–5).

Old Testament Student Manual

Edited August 22, 2012 by cinepro

[supersnail]

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.

Succinct and yet so true. The usefulness of science has been overlooked by many of those purporting to champion it. We can use quantum tunneling in flash memory without making a grandiose, and false, claim like quantum mechanics means God doesn't exist or makes him redundant. I wonder how many of those talking about quantum cosmology as some kind of excuse for attacking religion are even aware of such applications.

We use science to accomplish human goals. It is one industry among others. We can accept a variety of beliefs on faith without appropriating science to buttress beliefs that are supposed to be based on faith in the first place.

The idolization of science is an abuse of science, one that leads ironically to a narrow view of the possibilities of nature. It is surprising how utterly lacking in vision (for lack of a better of word) some self-styled defenders of science are. Surely there are species out there that have been at it longer than we, maybe thousands of years longer, and their powers would probably make ours look pathetic in comparison. It can be very reasonable to accept, on faith, things that aren't currently supported by scientific theories, but which aren't ruled out by those theories. The theories and findings of science are inherently tentative. Choices based on Occam's razor are tentative. In addition, powerful agents make use of natural laws every day without violating them -- us. None of this is to say faith-based beliefs are scientific or even likely to be supported by science in the future. But we can hold these beliefs without going to science for support.

Science does have a place in apologetics, but as I have said in the past, apologetics is mainly about scrutinizing reasons put forth for disbelief. Belief itself is not firmly founded on science. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Can you see over the edge of a ball? I don't know about you but no matter how high up I go the furthest I can see is the horizon.

Post hoc rationalizations.

[supersnail]

I thought the point of the OP (though it consisted primarily of questions) was fairly well-defined and restricted in scope. We no more need our current scientific knowledge to believe in the literal parting of the Red Sea than we need our current scientific knowledge to believe in Jesus' literal resurrection. (Contrary to lazy or sophistical interpretation, that is not to say we don't need our current scientific knowledge. It's just that we don't need to, or shouldn't, base faith on it.) Actually, "literal" is beside the point. The confines of science should not dictate our religious beliefs. I also viewed the OP as representing a critique of things like creation science; it is hard to see what skeptics would have to complain about in that context. Yes, some artistic license was taken with the titling of this thread, but I feel the point of the OP is clear and important. Through no fault of science itself, we have made an idol out of science. It is not the sun's fault that sun worship is idolatrous either.

The OP speaks to a need for dialogue within and between religious communities. May I respectfully suggest that the alleged worthlessness of religion is a topic for another thread.