Truth And Scientific Findings

[cinepro]

Have the scientific findings over the past thirty years supported or hurt the Church's claims of truth and revelatory knowledge?

 

The Church has been pretty good about not making doctrinal claims that venture into scientific territory, and for those times when it has, it has been pretty good about abandoning or "redefining" those claims in such a way that they become plausibly deniable or unfalsifiable.

 

So the answer to your question is that the Church has no claims of "truth or revelatory knowledge" that could be hurt by "scientific findings" because in the end, anything that gets too hurt by scientific findings isn't considered a "claim" by the Church.

 

But if we take the statements of Apostles and Prophets published in official Church publications at face value, then there have been many such statements over the past thirty years that are hurt by "science", and many that aren't.

Edited August 23, 2013 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

I think I understand the gist of the idea, and I can think within those parameters.

 

 

 

It is both a religous idea and a scientific one, too, and we can measure supremecy by any reasonable standard. I was thinking in terms of intelligence, particularly, but we can use some other standard such as wisdom or the ability to do the most good.

 

 

 

I meant it as a dismissive exclamation. The idea that there is no God is a false idea which can easily be proven false through science.

 

 

 

Then what do you call it when you observe different kinds of beings while seeing that one is more supreme than all of the other kinds of beings? Even if we were limited to seeing only the kinds of beings we now have on this planet, we would still be the ones we regard as the "God" kind because we are more supreme than any other kind of being in all of the existence that we can observe.

 

Then apply it.

 

While God may use science. Science can't posit any God.

 

I never said there was no God. I  just can't use God as a factor in science. IE; While 1+1=2; 1+God=infinity.

 

Supreme? What is your measuring stick? Man may be well suited for a varity of environments because of his capacity to make things. But slight changes in those environments and we don't do so well. IE; If we can't maintain an internal temperature of real close to 98.6 degreees Fahrenheit we die. Yet certain animals live quite nicely in the most extreme of environments.

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

[Ahab]

Then apply it.

 

While God may use science. Science can't posit any God.

 

I never said there was no God. I  just can't use God as a factor in science. IE; While 1+1=2; 1+God=infinity.

 

Supreme? What is your measuring stick? Man may be well suited for a varity of environments because of his capacity to make things. But slight changes in those environments and we don't do so well. IE; If we can't maintain an internal temperature of real close to 98.6 degreees Fahrenheit we die. Yet certain animals live quite nicely in the most extreme of environments.

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

Asked and answered already.  Go back and read what I wrote or let me know why you don't understand what I said.

[changed]

Science is concerned with the materialistic side of things - what you can touch/see/taste/ - empirical knowledge - and the physical world is important in LDS theology, part of the reason we are here is to get a physical body, to have a physical existence - that a fullness of joy can only be achieved in a material world. 

Many scientists (not all) believe there is no such thing as "non-physical" entities though, which can be a problem.  Subjects covered in liberal arts fields - concerning subjective opinions, feelings, emotions - entities which you cannot put a number or equation to, cannot empirically measure, are often discounted as "worthless" areas of study to a scientist.  They do not want to accept that "subjective" exists, that "uncertainty" exists, that unpredictable exists - that free will exists. 

Science is beautiful - but only for those who also recognize the "liberal arts" side of life too - that there is more to existence than the physical world.

Edited August 24, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

Lots depends on how entities are defined. I would include the nonphysicallity of the human mind.

[SamIam]

Have the scientific findings over the past thirty years supported or hurt the Church's claims of truth and revelatory knowledge?

Unequivocally, it has supported revelatory knowledge...well perhaps I should be more specific in terms of the cosmos it has greatly strengthened our stance.  Up until the past 30 or so years and really in just the last 10 or so the thought of inhabitable planets was decried as pure fiction - now that teaching of LDS theology which has been around for almost 200 years is the backbone of astronomical excitement in that field.  Brigham spoke of planets moving from one solar system to another...only again in perhaps the past 10 or so has that ever even been hinted at and now it is commonplace knowledge.

 

However, is this material heralded as supporting the church?  Is there any acknowledgement that we have been way ahead of this curve for years?   Do any notice that the theories of relativity are hinted at in the book of Abraham in the discussion of one planet above another in reckonings of time? Nope.  So I must caveat that while in the hearts and minds of some it has supported the church, in the majority of the world and even amongst the saints the realization of such is not noted.  

[thesometimesaint]

Unequivocally, it has supported revelatory knowledge...well perhaps I should be more specific in terms of the cosmos it has greatly strengthened our stance.  Up until the past 30 or so years and really in just the last 10 or so the thought of inhabitable planets was decried as pure fiction - now that teaching of LDS theology which has been around for almost 200 years is the backbone of astronomical excitement in that field.  Brigham spoke of planets moving from one solar system to another...only again in perhaps the past 10 or so has that ever even been hinted at and now it is commonplace knowledge.

 

However, is this material heralded as supporting the church?  Is there any acknowledgement that we have been way ahead of this curve for years?   Do any notice that the theories of relativity are hinted at in the book of Abraham in the discussion of one planet above another in reckonings of time? Nope.  So I must caveat that while in the hearts and minds of some it has supported the church, in the majority of the world and even amongst the saints the realization of such is not noted.  

 

So far there is no evidence for a inhabited planet outside of our own. As early as 1896, Nikola Tesla suggested that radio signals could be used to contact extraterrestrial life. We keep looking and with great hope to find it/them. Personally I believe there are extrarrestrials out there, but unless one actually comes to visit. The distances and diffusion of radio signals prevents us finding them outside of a few light years away.

Edited August 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Have the scientific findings over the past thirty years supported or hurt the Church's claims of truth and revelatory knowledge?

Did you see this?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61376-43-minutes-which-could-change-your-life-and-this-forum-science-religion/

[mfbukowski]

All religion will eventually have to come to the realization that if they really want truth they have to go with Science.

 

Science is never wrong.

 

Anything postulated is subject to proofs and testing and re-testing. Many things are thrown out as 'scientifically proven' when they are actually theories put forth in an attempt to explain what is not known or understood. Once tested and checked, reviewed and studied the theory becomes accepted. At this time it is accepted but subject to revision and change as new information comes out and is discovered.

 

Most religious thought is based on observation and too often on wishful thinking. From definitive statements made by religious leaders who have little or no knowledge about the reality of what they are saying we get dogmatic idiocy - statements made without the testing the Scientific method provides. Thus, the universe revolves around the Earth and so many other notions that come from it.

 

If religion is true it will not be at odds with science.

Can it tell me how to be happy or why it is wrong to kill babies?  Or what the best form of government is?  Or what the "best" of ANYTHING is?

[thesometimesaint]

Can it tell me how to be happy or why it is wrong to kill babies?  Or what the best form of government is?  Or what the "best" of ANYTHING is?

 

 

There is no guarantees of happiness at least in this life. Those in the US have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

Babies don't have consent. Moreover kill enough babies and the haman race dies out.

 

The best form of government is having a righteous king, and the worst kind of government is having a unrighteous one.

 

Doing the most amount of good while doing the least amount of bad.

[ERayR]

All religion will eventually have to come to the realization that if they really want truth they have to go with Science.

 

Science is never wrong.

 

 

 

Boy do we see at what alter you sacrafice.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Have the scientific findings over the past thirty years supported or hurt the Church's claims of truth and revelatory knowledge?

I would say our beliefs more than any other in Christian theology.

[Calm]

There is no guarantees of happiness at least in this life. Those in the US have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

did not answer the question

Babies don't have consent. Moreover kill enough babies and the haman race dies out.

 

 

 

Did not answer the question

The best form of government is having a righteous king, and the worst kind of government is having a unrighteous one.

 

 

And where does science tell us this answer?

Doing the most amount of good while doing the least amount of bad.

 

And again, where does science tell us this is the answer?

[Ahab]

Lots depends on how entities are defined. I would include the nonphysicallity of the human mind.

When you're referring to a mind you're referrring to a spirit/person, and every spirit/person has a body composed of some elements.

 

Thus, the mind is spirit, and the spirit is matter.

[Ahab]

So far there is no evidence for a inhabited planet outside of our own. As early as 1896, Nikola Tesla suggested that radio signals could be used to contact extraterrestrial life. We keep looking and with great hope to find it/them. Personally I believe there are extrarrestrials out there, but unless one actually comes to visit. The distances and diffusion of radio signals prevents us finding them outside of a few light years away.

Many have come to visit.  Do you think our Father and Jesus Christ and heavenly angels have always been native to this planet?

[thesometimesaint]

did not answer the question

 

 

Did not answer the question

 

And where does science tell us this answer?

And again, where does science tell us this is the answer?

 

Are we back to just scientific questions?

 

I don't know as there are scientific answers to those type of questions, or at least satisfactory ones.

[thesometimesaint]

When you're referring to a mind you're referrring to a spirit/person, and every spirit/person has a body composed of some elements.

 

Thus, the mind is spirit, and the spirit is matter.

 

JS said that the spirit is finer matter. Unfortunately he didn't clarify exactly what he meant by that. It can't be the mind because without the alive brain the mind can't exist. So I accept that I have a spirit, but have no way of knowing what it is made of.

[Ahab]

JS said that the spirit is finer matter. Unfortunately he didn't clarify exactly what he meant by that. It can't be the mind because without the alive brain the mind can't exist. So I accept that I have a spirit, but have no way of knowing what it is made of.

The mind and the brain are not the same thing.   We're not going to lose our mind or be without it when we die.  You'll still be able to think when you die, even though your mortal brain will remain with your mortal body.  Your spirit/mind is what you are without your mortal body and when you die you will see what you will look like and your outline/form/substance will be made from what you will then be able to see.

[mfbukowski]

Doing the most amount of good while doing the least amount of bad.

What is good and bad?  Where did that come from?  Science?  Or is good and bad not real, since the only way to find reality is through science?

[thesometimesaint]

The mind and the brain are not the same thing.   We're not going to lose our mind or be without it when we die.  You'll still be able to think when you die, even though your mortal brain will remain with your mortal body.  Your spirit/mind is what you are without your mortal body and when you die you will see what you will look like and your outline/form/substance will be made from what you will then be able to see.

Never said they were, but not having a brain makes having a mind problematic, at lest on this planet.

 

Loosing our mind is prose for not being rational.

 

The brain looses the synaptic connections that allow it to function very quickly after death. Dig up a corpse you'll not find any brain activity.

 

I have no problem with that belief. What I can't do is show physical evidence for it. So whatever spirit is we have yet to find what matter it is made of.