Two Questions For The Scientifically Oriented

[thesometimesaint]

In giving this some thought I still think these are good questions but, to me, more important is the question, How many would really believe it was Christ?

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would so believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Again you misunderstand me. I said "many of the scientifically inclined;" I wasn't referring to all the scientifically inclined. Words mean things, and the reason why I didn't say all of them is because some scientists do believe in God and, to one degree or another, seek additional wisdom beyond scientific inquiry from the scriptures, the prophets and personal revelation through the light of Christ or through the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

I would appreciate it if from now on you read my posts more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions. I appreciate the subtleties of language and try to be careful as I write. So please pay attention to the subtleties of my writing. Again, there is a significant difference between the words 'many' and 'all.'   

 

That is distinction without a difference. Scientists, and those scientifically inclined, are found in every religion. It is about as useful as asking how many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, what have you, would believe?

[teddyaware]

of course, the wisdom that will parish includes that of the creationists who suppose they are wise in interpreting the scriptures according to their own dogma and rejecting the brilliant knowledge God has revealed through science.

I agree with you. That's why I'm keeping and open mind on all of this until the day when God does reveal the hidden mysteries of His creation. The main reason why I seem to be advocating for the antievolutionists is because their skepticism on the supposedly settled science of organic evolution gets short shrift and receives ridicule from some participants on this board. God tells us there are going to be many surprises when the full story of creation is finally revealed. So why not step back and relax and not allow ourselves to get frozen into one position or another  until the heavenly jury comes in to report?

[teddyaware]

That is distinction without a difference. Scientists, and those scientifically inclined, are found in every religion. It is about as useful as asking how many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, what have you, would believe?

I hope you're not a scientist. Because if you can't tell there's a big difference between the words many and all you're going to come up with a lot of incorrect scientific conclusions. I challenge you to ask a real scientist that if one uses the words "many" or "all" if they merely indicate a distinction without a difference?

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Perhaps you are misinterpreting this scripture which is causing your doctrinal stumbling block. There is a difference between learning all things and learning the truth of all things. Also, the 'all things' has a qualifier - it is referring to all things pertaining to our salvation. You would have to provide an example of where scientific knowledge came through prayer. When the Salt Lake Temple was built, Brigham Young sent people out to learn through scientific discovery and not through prayer how to get the job done. Prayer guided them in the right direction, but it did not produce the information. The truth of the knowledge they were uncovering was confirmed through the holy ghost, but the knowledge itself was uncovered through the scientific method of observation.

You are again incorrect. When the scriptures speak of God revealing all things to those that love, obey and honor Him, these scriptures aren't just talking about knowledge pertaining to salvation. Read one of these for yourself:

32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.

 

That about says it all, doesn't it?

 

With all due respect, I must say I'm beginning to weary of constantly having to correct incorrect interpretations of what I said, so It's likely that from now on I won't be responding to each of your rejoinders.

 

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with you. That's why I'm keeping and open mind on all of this until the day when God does reveal the hidden mysteries of His creation. The main reason why I seem to be advocating for the antievolutionists is because their skepticism on the supposedly settled science of organic evolution gets short shrift and receives ridicule from some participants on this board. God tells us there are going to be many surprises when the full story of creation is finally revealed. So why not step back and relax and not allow ourselves to get frozen into one position or another  until the heavenly jury comes in to report?

 

I too keep and open mind to what God has to say. What I don't do is let my brain fall out in the mean time.

 

If you're really not an anti-evolutionist don't advocate for them. It really is as simple as that.

 

The science is settled. All living organisms on this planet evolved from simpler living organisms.

 

I like surprises. IE; When I was born the best we could do was captured V-2 rockets. Now we have landed men on the moon, put vehicles on Mars, and sent vehicles past our solar system. Truly amazing and surprising stuff.

 

If and when God tells me differently I'll go with that. However that will make for more questions and long talks with God.

[thesometimesaint]

I hope you're not a scientist. Because if you can't tell there's a big difference between the words many and all you're going to come up with a lot of incorrect scientific conclusions. I challenge you to ask a real scientist that if one uses the words "many" or "all" if they merely indicate a distinction without a difference?

 

I know the definitions of words. You are still making a distinction without a difference.

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

[Freedom]

You are again incorrect. When the scriptures speak of God revealing all things to those that love, obey and honor Him, these scriptures aren't just talking about knowledge pertaining to salvation. Read one of these for yourself:

32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.

 

That about says it all, doesn't it?

 

With all due respect, I must say I'm beginning to weary of constantly having to correct incorrect interpretations of what I said, so It's likely that from now on I won't be responding to each of your rejoinders.

 

Yes he will. Spiritual matters though scripture and revelation, physical matters through science. 

[CV75]

See post 33.

That which we sense spiritually (especially when illuminated by the Light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, the Gift of the Holy Ghost) does not come by one of the five physical senses. This spiritual sense is what would give me the basis for bearing solemn testimony of the truth. Of course this would have to be separated from the emotional senses and other subjectively processed senses.

 

If I lacked the benefit of spiritual sense or sensitivity, the experience would carry no solemn meaning or sense of obligation to testify, since I would not perceive the truth of what was going on. My lack of spiritual sense or sensitivity could be my own fault, or due to a physical problem that interferes with the expression (internal and external) of my spiritual senses.

 

If it were me--as spiritual as I am (ahem)--I could still testify of the event without having even been there, even though all my physical senses are operational but left unused in the case of my absence.

[Nofear]

Why bother with a hypothetical?

 

I will solemnly swear to you, teddyaware, and everyone else who reads this that I have in fact seen a man saw a woman into two separate and distinct pieces, and then rejoin those pieces at which point she was fully restored.  I saw and heard this with my own senses, and I was in no way impaired.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Very cool.

[ERayR]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would so believe.

 

We are discussing a "what if" I know you are scientifically inclined in outlook.  Would you still recognize him if he refuted your closely held beliefs?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

We are discussing a "what if" I know you are scientifically inclined in outlook. Would you still recognize him if he refuted your closely held beliefs?

Absolutely. Would you?

[teddyaware]

That which we sense spiritually (especially when illuminated by the Light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, the Gift of the Holy Ghost) does not come by one of the five physical senses. This spiritual sense is what would give me the basis for bearing solemn testimony of the truth. Of course this would have to be separated from the emotional senses and other subjectively processed senses.

 

If I lacked the benefit of spiritual sense or sensitivity, the experience would carry no solemn meaning or sense of obligation to testify, since I would not perceive the truth of what was going on. My lack of spiritual sense or sensitivity could be my own fault, or due to a physical problem that interferes with the expression (internal and external) of my spiritual senses.

 

If it were me--as spiritual as I am (ahem)--I could still testify of the event without having even been there, even though all my physical senses are operational but left unused in the case of my absence.

This is what it all boils down to. Some of the Lord's enemies saw Him raise the rotting body of Lazarus from the dead, and their first impulse was to run to their leaders to warn them the Jesus was getting too big for His britches.

[teddyaware]

Yes he will. Spiritual matters though scripture and revelation, physical matters through science.

That's not it says. Here's what the First Presidency had to say on the subject

Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.

 

[CV75]

This is what it all boils down to. Some of the Lord's enemies saw Him raise the rotting body of Lazarus from the dead, and their first impulse was to run to their leaders to warn them the Jesus was getting too big for His britches.

It is interesting to me that, according to John 2:23, the blessed beleive not because of the miracle, but when they see it. Yet others (John 12:37) won't beleive it.

 

Alma 23:16 is also interesting to me because it shows that the miracle that takes place is really within the person, and not whatever it is that he perceives with his physical senses: “…as many as believed, or as many as were brought to the knowledge of the truth, through …the power of God working miracles in them…”

 

But we do live in a physical world, obviously, so many of these miracles start out as things we can perceive with our physical senses. But we are also spirit (D&C 93:33), so those senses are always supposed to be at work too.

[teddyaware]

Deleted

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I too keep and open mind to what God has to say. What I don't do is let my brain fall out in the mean time.

 

If you're really not an anti-evolutionist don't advocate for them. It really is as simple as that.

 

The science is settled. All living organisms on this planet evolved from simpler living organisms.

 

I like surprises. IE; When I was born the best we could do was captured V-2 rockets. Now we have landed men on the moon, put vehicles on Mars, and sent vehicles past our solar system. Truly amazing and surprising stuff.

 

If and when God tells me differently I'll go with that. However that will make for more questions and long talks with God.

How could this be if the "revelations" of modern science pertaining to organic evolution are already "settled?" You're not hedging your bets, are you?

[thesometimesaint]

We are discussing a "what if" I know you are scientifically inclined in outlook.  Would you still recognize him if he refuted your closely held beliefs?

 

Yes. But as I already said I'd have a lot more questions to ask, and hopeful some nice long talks with God.

[cinepro]

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 also note that, assuming there was no assisting mechanism, the "descending from the sky" bit is much more of a miracle to me than producing the food.

 

But since you're framing this event from the perspective of "science", you should probably explain to us what, exactly, this is supposed to mean from a scientific standpoint.  What's its purpose?

 

In other words, suppose every scientist in the world signed a petition agreeing to accept the story as recorded in the scriptures as being a 100% historical event.  Based on that, the following theory or law is accepted by all science:

 

The Theory of The Descending Food Producing Man:  1. There exists a human-appearing entity who has, at least once, floated down out of the sky, and upon reaching the earth, produced a quantity of a bread-like substance and wine-like liquid and distributed it to the humans nearby.

 

Now what?  How does this change anything from a scientific perspective?  What scientific fields are expanded or illuminated?    Can we predict any future appearances of this being?  Can we theorize or test the principles upon which the food-like substances were created?  Can we investigate his floating properties? 

 

In short, a description of an unscientific event (even a lucid, erudite description) is still unscientific!  It's not the description that makes it "scientific" (although it can certainly be a piece of the puzzle).  It's the event itself.

 

It's like UFO's.  No matter how many people have see them with their own senses, UFO's have failed to provide even the smallest contribution to "science" in any form.  Not a single field has been advanced with the help of the testimony of UFO sighters.  The only beneficiaries have been the authors, filmmakers and other members of the entertainment and/or "UFO" industries that have benefited from such interest. 

 

So it is with religious theories (including creationism and intelligent design).  Scientists ignore them because they don't mean anything.  Even if they were true, nothing would change for science.  Sure, they could add "...and that's the way God did it!"  to the end of every theory, but there would still be questions for them to answer using the scientific method.

Edited January 14, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

How could this be if the "revelations" of modern science pertaining to organic evolution are already "settled?" You're not hedging your bets, are you?

 

The science is settled. The religion specific. The interest comes in when we try to reconcile the two. We really don't know much about either. The amount we do know about both is but a tiny thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance. I'm sure God knows and I eagerly await the time he does tell us.

[teddyaware]

The science is settled. The religion specific. The interest comes in when we try to reconcile the two. We really don't know much about either. The amount we do know about both is but a tiny thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance. I'm sure God knows and I eagerly await the time he does tell us.

This profound ignorance being the case, only the most profound humility and open mindedness should should attend all discussions on this subject.

[thesometimesaint]

This profound ignorance being the case, only the most profound humility and open mindedness should should attend all discussions on this subject.

 

One of my chief failings in life is that I'm not very humble. What I do know I do know, and no amount of humility is going to change that. At the same time I'm all too aware of my lack of knowledge on subjects great and small. So I do the best I can with the knowledge I do have, as limited as it is, and hope and pray that God will grant me more.

[teddyaware]

One of my chief failings in life is that I'm not very humble. What I do know I do know, and no amount of humility is going to change that. At the same time I'm all too aware of my lack of knowledge on subjects great and small. So I do the best I can with the knowledge I do have, as limited as it is, and hope and pray that God will grant me more.

You are surely aware of the fact that it's the humblest and meekest of the diligent seekers after the truth who will obtain the greatest knowledge in the end.

[teddyaware]

I would also note that, assuming there was no assisting mechanism, the "descending from the sky" bit is much more of a miracle to me than producing the food.

 

But since you're framing this event from the perspective of "science", you should probably explain to us what, exactly, this is supposed to mean from a scientific standpoint.  What's its purpose?

 

In other words, suppose every scientist in the world signed a petition agreeing to accept the story as recorded in the scriptures as being a 100% historical event.  Based on that, the following theory or law is accepted by all science:

 

The Theory of The Descending Food Producing Man:  1. There exists a human-appearing entity who has, at least once, floated down out of the sky, and upon reaching the earth, produced a quantity of a bread-like substance and wine-like liquid and distributed it to the humans nearby.

 

Now what?  How does this change anything from a scientific perspective?  What scientific fields are expanded or illuminated?    Can we predict any future appearances of this being?  Can we theorize or test the principles upon which the food-like substances were created?  Can we investigate his floating properties? 

 

In short, a description of an unscientific event (even a lucid, erudite description) is still unscientific!  It's not the description that makes it "scientific" (although it can certainly be a piece of the puzzle).  It's the event itself.

 

It's like UFO's.  No matter how many people have see them with their own senses, UFO's have failed to provide even the smallest contribution to "science" in any form.  Not a single field has been advanced with the help of the testimony of UFO sighters.  The only beneficiaries have been the authors, filmmakers and other members of the entertainment and/or "UFO" industries that have benefited from such interest. 

 

So it is with religious theories (including creationism and intelligent design).  Scientists ignore them because they don't mean anything.  Even if they were true, nothing would change for science.  Sure, they could add "...and that's the way God did it!"  to the end of every theory, but there would still be questions for them to answer using the scientific method.

I believe I answer the questions you pose here in my post # 33 on this thread.