Two Questions For The Scientifically Oriented

[teddyaware]

Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So...
 
1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine?
 
Or...
 
Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ?
 
* e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.

 

 

[ERayR]

Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So...

 

1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine?

 

Or...

 

Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ?

 

* e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.

 

 

 

 

Good questions

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So...

 

1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine?

 

Or...

 

Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ?

 

* e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.

 

 

I would have no problem testifying to what I saw. Upon cross examination, I would have to admit that it all could have been an illusion made possible by sleight of hand and cool hidden technology. A blind man healed by Jesus wisely said "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" I can only testify to what I know. Whether it was an illusion or not, I was hungry and I did eat.

[urroner]

I would have to agree with SU.  I would testify to what I had experienced.  I would have said "seen," but you mentioned all five senses,

 

I would also be more than willing to testify that I didn't understand how Christ did what he did, but I don't if that would be necessary.  Scientist, particularly physicists, see a lot of things, but are at a loss of words for how it's happening.  For example, dark energy and dark matter.

From http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

 

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

 

It seems that we don't know what makes up about 95% of mass/energy in the observable universe.  We haven't even began to understand it, but that hasn't stopped scientists from talking about it.

 

But I don't think that what Christ did was repeatable as a scientific experiment unless Christ was willing to do it several times.

Edited January 14, 2014 by urroner

[teddyaware]

I would have no problem testifying to what I saw. Upon cross examination, I would have to admit that it all could have been an illusion made possible by sleight of hand and cool hidden technology. A blind man healed by Jesus wisely said "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" I can only testify to what I know. Whether it was an illusion or not, I was hungry and I did eat.

So if the Lord allowed the miracle to be repeated several times, under the strictest standards of modern science, with utilization of the most advanced of applicable scientific instruments, would you then be able to testify to the fact that something previously thought to be impossible actually did take place or is there still room for doubt?

[teddyaware]

I would have to agree with SU.  I would testify to what I had experienced.  I would have said "seen," but you mentioned all five senses,

 

I would also be more than willing to testify that I didn't understand how Christ did what he did, but I don't if that would be necessary.  Scientist, particularly physicists, see a lot of things, but are at a loss of words for how it's happening.  For example, dark energy and dark matter.

From http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

 

It seems that we don't know what makes up about 95% of mass/energy in the observable universe.  We haven't even began to understand it, but that hasn't stopped scientists from talking about it.

 

But I don't think that what Christ did was repeatable as a scientific experiment unless Christ was willing to do it several times.

A gem of a post! Thank you for this one. Am I off base when I say the quest of these physicists in some ways seems to mirror a thoughtful Latter-day Saint's quest to know and understand God?

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Freedom]

Any miracle is nothing more than an event using laws of physics that we have not yet learned. If I went back 200 years and pulled out a flashlight, those around me would see it as a miracle. Likewise, if in this same time period I gave antibiotics to a child dying from a bacterial infection and she was cured in a day, they would see me as a God. I would see it as science that they simply do not understand yet. I have witnessed miracles that I cannot explain through science, this does not mean that science was not involved. it simply means that God has not revealed all his knowledge as yet. The quorum of the 12 include scientists and they can be both spiritual witnesses and scientifically minded. The two are not mutually elusive. 

[Sevenbak]

So if the Lord allowed the miracle to be repeated several times, under the strictest standards of modern science, with utilization of the most advanced of applicable scientific instruments, would you then be able to testify to the fact that something previously thought to be impossible actually did take place or is there still room for doubt?

You mean like the bodies of many dead people, rising from the dead and ministering unto many?   It was important enough even non-witnesses to this event, for the Savior to make sure Nephi recorded it.  I imagine it was spectacular for those in both the new world and old that witnessed it.

[urroner]

A gem of a post! Thank you for this one. Am I off base when I say the quest of these physicists in some ways seems to mirror a thoughtful Latter-day Saint's quest to know and understand God?

If I was a physicist and I saw a miracle like that, I would really, really, really want to find out how Christ did it, but I'm just an engineer who majored in physics for a couple of semesters, I only just really, really want to find out.  Of course, I wouldn't think that God would be forthcoming with the answer, but it sure wouldn't hurt to ask Him.

[teddyaware]

Any miracle is nothing more than an event using laws of physics that we have not yet learned. If I went back 200 years and pulled out a flashlight, those around me would see it as a miracle. Likewise, if in this same time period I gave antibiotics to a child dying from a bacterial infection and she was cured in a day, they would see me as a God. I would see it as science that they simply do not understand yet. I have witnessed miracles that I cannot explain through science, this does not mean that science was not involved. it simply means that God has not revealed all his knowledge as yet. The quorum of the 12 include scientists and they can be both spiritual witnesses and scientifically minded. The two are not mutually elusive.

I agree with this. Miracles are not magic but are manifestations of laws not yet known or understood. This is what I've been trying to say all along.

 

But I must say resurrecting a dead body, that crumbled to dust over 1,500 years ago, to glorious immortality trumps in pure spectacularity any invention or discovery heretofore made by man.

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Freedom]

I agree with this. Miracles are not magic but are manifestations of laws not yet known or understood. This is what I've been trying to say all along.

 

But I must say resurrecting a dead body, that crumbled to dust over 1,500 years ago, to glorious immortality trumps in pure spectacularity any invention or discovery heretofore made by man.

It is not that complicated. We can do it already on a small scale. it's called cloning. All he needs is our DNA. But if you have been saying this all along, why must you make it an either/or with science and religion? The region part is the miracle. The science part is how he did it. 

[teddyaware]

If I was a physicist and I saw a miracle like that, I would really, really, really want to find out how Christ did it, but I'm just an engineer who majored in physics for a couple of semesters, I only just really, really want to find out.  Of course, I wouldn't think that God would be forthcoming with the answer, but it sure wouldn't hurt to ask Him.

There are several times when the Lord promised the faithful they will one day have all the answers to all the mysteries of His kingdom. So be faithful, Okay?

[urroner]

As far as the resurrection goes, I don't think that we will receive the "same" bodies in which we died in.  Suppose I was a cannibal and ate somebody and than that person's body became part of my body or an animal killed and ate a person and then I killed and ate that animal and part of that animals body which I ate was part of that person's body and it became part of my body, would I lose that body part?

I just think that a new body would be made and my spirit would be stuffed into that new body.  I don't know if exact DNA would even be necessary.

[Calm]

As far as the resurrection goes, I don't think that we will receive the "same" bodies in which we died in.  Suppose I was a cannibal and ate somebody and than that person's body became part of my body or an animal killed and ate a person and then I killed and ate that animal and part of that animals body which I ate was part of that person's body and it became part of my body, would I lose that body part?

I just think that a new body would be made and my spirit would be stuffed into that new body.  I don't know if exact DNA would even be necessary.

And let's not forget that at any given time one's cells are a unique combination since the body is dying and renewing itself from practically the moment of conception.

And if one's body is perfect, it is a given that it is never identical to our "fallen" mortal bodies....especially if it lacks blood as some have speculated.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So if the Lord allowed the miracle to be repeated several times, under the strictest standards of modern science, with utilization of the most advanced of applicable scientific instruments, would you then be able to testify to the fact that something previously thought to be impossible actually did take place or is there still room for doubt?

Room for doubt? Absolutely. I can only know one thing: that I exist. All else exists to different degrees of certainty. I am on record on this board saying that either evolution is true or God created us in a manner indistinguishable from evolution (i.e. He cooked the books). Same thing here. I can testify only that I have seen - not that I haven't been deceived by slight if hand.

[teddyaware]

It is not that complicated. We can do it already on a small scale. it's called cloning. All he needs is our DNA. But if you have been saying this all along, why must you make it an either/or with science and religion? The region part is the miracle. The science part is how he did it.

I was not making it an either or. If you carefully read what I wrote, you'll see what I was trying to say is that many LDS on this board gravitate to a naturalistic, uniformitarian view of creation, giving short shrift to the possibility that mighty miracles (manifestations of higher laws)  were part of the creation, in much the same way mighty miracles will be part and parcel of the creation of the new celestialized earth, and it's resurrected celestialized inhabitants. My point was that if the Lord is going to create the new earth and it's inhabitants by mighty miracles (e.g. cataclysmic destructions on earth caused by heavenly beings sent from heaven, the enabling of formerly earthbound humans to fly through the air to meet Christ above the earth at His second coming, mankind's glorious resurrection into immortality and eternal life, the transporting of the entire population of the human race to God's great white throne for judgment, the death and resurrection of the earth, the rapid  transformation of the earth into a gigantic urim and thummim, etc.) why, then, is it beyond the realm of reason and possibility that the He may have done some of the same kinds of mighty miracles at the beginning of the earth's creation? This seems very reasonable to me.

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

I was not making it an either or. If you carefully read what I wrote, you'll see what I was trying to say is that many LDS on this board gravitate to a naturalistic, uniformitarian view of creation, giving short shrift to the possibility that mighty miracles (manifestations of higher laws)  were part of the creation, in much the same way mighty miracles will be part and parcel of the creation of the new celestialized earth, and it's resurrected celestialized inhabitants. My point was that if the Lord is going to create the new earth and it's inhabitants by mighty miracles (e.g. cataclysmic destructions on earth caused by heavenly beings sent from heaven, the enabling of formerly earthbound humans to fly through the air to meet Christ above the earth at His second coming, mankind's glorious resurrection into immortality and eternal life, the transporting of the entire population of the human race to God's great white throne for judgment, the death and resurrection of the earth, the rapid  transformation of the earth into a gigantic urim and thummim, etc.) why, then, is it beyond the realm of reason and possibility that the He may have done some of the same kinds of mighty miracles at the beginning of the earth's creation? This seems very reasonable to me.

Whether it happens rapidly or takes place over a millennium, many LDS are theologically committed to a non-miraculous sequence of events.  You use the term "miracle" in a naturalistic context, suggesting that heavenly beings may simply employ a higher law in effecting the vast changes which are to take place.  You are thus both accepting of the naturalistic modes, while at the same time you are critical of them.

 

The problem is that the term "miracle" is used in normal conversation and in normative Judeo-Christian theology to mean "law abrogating."  One of the main weakenesses of that normative theology is its commitment to miracle as the abrogation of the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), along with a deep belief in an immaterial God who exists outside of time & space. The consequences of such dogma is that it immediately sets itself in opposition to reason and logic.  For those born of the Enlightenment, that is hard to swallow.  Thus the "death of God."  I suggest that we be very cautious in too readily adopting the failed concepts of normative Judeo-Chistian religion.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[halconero]

If we're talking about the Saviour, and he did it in the manner that you explained, the question for me would not be "did he really do it?", but "how did he do it?"

[teddyaware]

Room for doubt? Absolutely. I can only know one thing: that I exist. All else exists to different degrees of certainty. I am on record on this board saying that either evolution is true or God created us in a manner indistinguishable from evolution (i.e. He cooked the books). Same thing here. I can testify only that I have seen - not that I haven't been deceived by slight if hand.

This is where I believe your construct comes crashing down: The prophets knew things were true -- there was no doubt, confusion or ambiguity about it. Moses knew he saw God. He did not have to languish in the netherworld where nothing is for certain other than acceding to one's own existence. This is why I love the prophets -- they have the more sure word of prophesy and the surety of their testimonies of Christ shine like celestial beacons to beckon and draw home those who would otherwise be forever lost or stranded in life's sea.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (2 Peter 1)

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

Aren't there two conflicting theories about miracles? the Elder James E. Talmage and St. Thomas Aquinas? views, one says that a miracle is something that happens using laws we don't know about and the other is God superceding laws, or God outside scientific laws. I don't have the capacity to figure out what is what but if I saw with my own eyes the miracle of Jesus I would testify to what I saw not knowing how he did it-I have had miracles in my own life and I dunno how he did it but I know he did it because I couldn't have done it

Edited January 14, 2014 by Duncan

[djones]

We humans think too hard about this stuff. To us it looks like a miracle but to Him it's just the simple organization of atoms. An air molecule can quickly be changed into a wine or bread molecule when the master asks it to. It's just little bits of matter and little bits of intelligence making a slight change of direction in how they spin around. Everything is made of the same stuff.

[Brian 2.0]

Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So...

1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine?

Or...

Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ?

* e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.

I'd have no problem testifying to what I saw, admitting that I saw no scientific explanation for it, etc.

I also think that those that knew me well might believe me, but that almost no one else would. And I for sure wouldn't think anyone would believe my witness 2000 years from now if the experience hadn't happened again to other people between that time.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Duplicate post

Edited January 14, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is where I believe your construct comes crashing down: The prophets knew things were true -- there was no doubt, confusion or ambiguity about it. Moses knew he saw God. He did not have to languish in the netherworld where nothing is for certain other than acceding to one's own existence. This is why I love the prophets -- they have the more sure word of prophesy and the surety of their testimonies of Christ shine like celestial beacons to beckon and draw home those who would otherwise be forever lost or stranded in life's sea.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (2 Peter 1)

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Perhaps best to cut those who know not some slack and thank God for the spiritual gifts that you have?

[teddyaware]

Whether it happens rapidly or takes place over a millennium, many LDS are theologically committed to a non-miraculous sequence of events.  You use the term "miracle" in a naturalistic context, suggesting that heavenly beings may simply employ a higher law in effecting the vast changes which are to take place.  You are thus both accepting of the naturalistic modes, while at the same time you are critical of them.

 

The problem is that the term "miracle" is used in normal conversation and in normative Judeo-Christian theology to mean "law abrogating."  One of the main weakenesses of that normative theology is its commitment to miracle as the abrogation of the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), along with a deep belief in an immaterial God who exists outside of time & space. The consequences of such dogma is that it immediately sets itself in opposition to reason and logic.  For those born of the Enlightenment, that is hard to swallow.  Thus the "death of God."  I suggest that we be very cautious in too readily adopting the failed concepts of normative Judeo-Chistian religion.

The LDS Church has always taught miracles are manifestations of higher law, not some divine form of magic. I have known, understood and agreed with this view since first joining the Church in 1970.

Though all miracles might be called part and parcel of a naturalistic view by some religiously oriented scientific types, the rarity and overwhelmingly spectacular nature of the miracles listed would not by any means be considered even a remote possibility by the gurus of modern uniformitarianism and organic evolution. So I wonder if your saying they are part of a naturalistic worldview isn't anything other than a monumental stretch?

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware